![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Could we have a few editors take a look at recent changes to Aristotle, Metaphysics (Aristotle) and Corpus Aristotelicum. The main discussion is at Talk:Aristotle. Thanks -- Snowded TALK 07:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the subject of the continuum a suitable topic for a separate page, or perhaps a section at continuum (theory)? Tkuvho ( talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_16#Category:Chinese_American_philosophers. AllyD ( talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:Philosophy#Requested move (2010). – xeno talk 13:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone impressed with Harry Frankfurt's "Bullsh*T" should agree that our articles on recent philosophy books can be less than admirable.
The article on Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition" would be a case in point: we aappear to have a section on Chap VI which neglects to mention its outrageously biased, fallactious and otherwise obnoxious attack on science.
The chapter is founded in the views of Heidegger, which in the 1st ed. go unmentioned.
The view of Einstein as of 1905 on matter, energy and later on invariance is comical were it not that she is now viewed as a prophet of everything from ecology to animal rights (she uses the word creature, but was as anthropocentric as Heidegger.)
Her chapter VI could be used for a Phil 100 Logic class for tracing deliberate ambiguities, false dichotomies, non-sequitors and the use of false premises.
Her conflation of all relativisms with general relativity is not simply comic. This book has been assigned reading in colleges for decades.
I suggest handing this article off to any grad student in philosophy of physics at CMU and asking Bryan Skyrms or Clark Glymour or Bas van Frassen to do a quick review (Yvon Gauthier in Montreal probably even knows the Heidegger required to debunk her Descartes interpretation). Her misrepresentation of Galileo's views is worse than that of Husserl, whose interest in phenomenology of Lebenswelt I, for one, otherwise share (here I see the influence of Heidegger and Fink on the aging Husserl.)
Joceyln Benoist might be willing to do a reading from the view of post-Heidegger philosophy in France.
With regard to feminism and phil: she appears ignorant of Emmy Noether at Bryn Mawr and has no mention of Susanne Langer among her mentions of Cassirer -even when talking about thought and symbol. See Heidegger in "Wegmarken" on Aristotle and physics. Compare Michael Oakeshott as a political thinker with views on modes of experience (her contemporary in many ways.)
See: philosophers as journalists versus philosophers an intellectuals. Arendt and the telescope.
Note: Isaiah Berlin both spoke Russian and knew Anna Akhmatova; cp Alasdair MaciIntyre's misrepresentation of Hilbert and a post for Noether in his book "Edith Stein". G. Robert Shiplett 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Nota bene: I proposed to merge these two categories so as to avoid unnecessary redundancy. Any thoughts? Greg Bard 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The following articles were proposed to be speedily deleted: Caribbean Philosophical Association, Mississippi Philosophical Association. I wonder if just the fact that these places have philosophical organizations is notable enough. Anyway, I would prefer to give these articles a chance, rather than have them deleted if possible. Any thoughts? Greg Bard 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I might be wrong but it seems like many diferent symbols are used for truth functionl operators on logic related papers (for example, unless i've missunderstood, it seems that both a both-ways arrow and a tripple equal are used to express a biconditional). I think the articals would be easier to read if one simbolic notation were used consistantly and if that notation were documented sombrero. This problem is especialy confusing becuase logicians from diferent countries use different notation. 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There has been some question of whether Atheism and Nontheism are distinct entities or should be merged. Please weigh-in here. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been some heavy editing to the article by a single user. The current version is not a real improvement, and quite a lot important (even if not well- or systematically-phrased) content been deleted. I have left a note concerning this at the article's talk page under a message of the user, and at the user's talk page as well, and I will have an eye on the issue. However, I would be glad if someone with an interest in that topic, and someone who is more experienced with formal issues (disambiguation link was deleted, three project boxes were moved to the bottom of the article) took a look as well. What does one do if a rollback to the old version is indicated? All the best, -- Morton Shumway ( talk) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_6#Category:Educational_philosophy. AllyD ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Index of philosophy articles (A–C) series (four pages) should have the philosophers removed from them since they have their own list. It may make the series of pages short enough to be merged into one. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has asked for more information about the Mayan conception of the infinite. I asked the user to move the discussion to Talk:Infinity (philosophy) rather than Talk:Infinity, but I'm not sure that the page is being watched since it's relatively new. Any takers?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 03:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to establish a bot to perform routine maintenance of some WikiProject pages. (See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Philosobot). Greg Bard 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A few sections in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences have a seemingly inferior logic that perhaps affects a larger selection of subsections. Those interested who are proficient in theology, philosophy and logic, might give a helping hand by assessing relevant subsections and giving comment at the talk page HERE! Thank you for your attention, and otherwise happy editing! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the name of Axel Honneth should be added in the template as the actual successor of Jürgen Habermas as the head of critical theory of Frankfurt School. Furter than being just the director in charge of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, his ideas (above all those contained in his work The Struggle for Recognition) are already been widely discussed across Europe and I think he would soon be recognized worldwide for the same reason. I would've added it by myself but I want to wait for some other's opinions before proceeding with that. -- VentDuNord ( talk) 10:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am dubious about the value of the whole " works" category tree as it intersects with the philosophy category. I think I may propose to delete it, as it is completely the same as Category:Philosophical_literature. Are there works that aren't also literature (which cannot merely be placed noncontroversially under literature)? The intention of the literature category originally was to contain all of this stuff. Is there some point to this before I make that proposal? Greg Bard 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | The related Category:Metaphysicians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
![]() | The related Category:English metaphysicians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
An editor from the mathematics department made this proposal. Greg Bard 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on intelligence and related issues, some of which I see are in the scope of this WikiProject. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. I would especially appreciate hearing about more sources that take a philosophical perspective or that broaden the discussion of intelligence to include nonhuman intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, everyone at WikiProject Philosophy! I am here to inform you that a proposal has been made to modify your barnstar, here. You are invited to participate in the discussion! Thanks for taking time to read this notice. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. The category Category:Philosophical works and its subcategories are currently nominated to be merged. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ xplicit 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm restarting this previously stillborn WikiProject. If you're interested, please join. There are still some very basic tasks which need doing, such as building the WikiProject page, and tagging core articles using the recently created Template:WikiProject Theology. Many thanks ! Claritas § 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmation bias, which is rated as mid-importance for this wikiproject, has passed FAC. This brings the total number of FA-class philosophy articles to 46. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This project claims History of painting within its area, so I am posting here for outside opinions. There is a disagreement on the History of painting talk page regarding the number of images within the article. I believe the majority of the 400 images need to be removed while other editors believe the article is fine as it is. Opinions appreciated. -- auburnpilot talk 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | The related Category:Philosophy_pages_by_type has been nominated for upmerging You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
![]() | The related Category:Philosophy-related_lists has been nominated for renaming You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Greg Bard ( talk) 20:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Newly created article on U.S. Heidegger editor & translator Jesse Glenn Gray needs help. He met with Heidegger and I think was lede editor on Heidegger for Harper & Row. Was friend of Hanna Arendt, who wrote fairly extensive intro on his most significant work "The Warriors." I've long suspected this memoir concerningn WWII influenced various writers and filmmakers whose work concerned Vietnam War.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just discovered that I worked on Fan loyalty ( AfD discussion). So I think it only just that the burden of working on Loyalty ( AfD discussion) be shared around a little. Feel free to muck in. There's lots to say. I've just read that Hegel thought loyalty to be unjustly founded, whereas Bismark boasted that it was a virtue that was peculiarly German. I'm sure that there's more in the same vein. If everyone does a paragraph each, we might have a good stub soon. Uncle G ( talk) 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just placed a prod tag on Portoesque logic, in case anyone here would like to review this action. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an on-going issue of mathematicians removing philosophy content from logic articles under the pretense of NPOV. Let me state for the record that coverage of content that is important to philosophers is not POV pushing, it is academic subject matter. Currently, there are a few of them pushing their view at Proposition (more evidence of this phenomenon at Tautology (logic)). In the proposed MOS there is provision for attempting to cover the "meta-perspective" (i.e. distinctions such as the type-token distinction are accounted for). This, it seems to me to be eminently responsible. However this is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of these editors. It is demonstrably their goal to remove any meta-perspective. This situation cannot stand. At some point we need to approve the MOS, and enforce it. Greg Bard 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
come on....I truely Belive that all knowleaged is impotant nomatter what the conscept or idea is. It is a vital part of our existace, with out the small things we cant have the bigger more complex things.... becuz..everything is made up from the same conscept, from that is were more idaes, conscepts, resources, and everyting else comes from. if we dont have the power, then we create it, thus takeing something in return as an equal... if we have the perception to know the outcome and its consequences, and in turn ther consequences' consequences...when the bad outcomes outway the good outcomes, only then do we have the right to take someting and make it seem like it nevered existed. GrimInsight NickHolcombe ( talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I have seen a number of strange things on the pages concerning ethics here. Most I can sort of handle myself, however, there is a page that needs to be redone completely because the very title is incorrect: consequantialism. This is a different word for utilism, not for teleological ethics. I have placed a quote on the talk page by the way. Anyway, I would like to have some help because it will require quite some work. Also somebody to discuss the matters with before fixing things that are not as broke as I might think they are. Is anybody willing to talk things over with me? I'll do the work myself if you are short on time (as I can image unfortunately). -- Faust ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the article on consequentionalism is actually on teleological ethics. There are a number of quite drastic cuts and pastes, not to mention renames involved. And I haven't even named the question of correct information. So, my intent is to first select what exactly is teleology and separate this from the consequentionalism. Then we can make an introduction to consequentionalism (utilism) and link to a more elaborate page if needs be. How well know are you in ethics? -- Faust ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone want to try and rewrite this? It's shocking in it's current state, as far away from NPOV as you could get. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:Use_of_italics_in_article_titles. Wareh ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a yawning impasse with several editors warring over this inevitably vexed issue. As if JD were reminding us all of the impossibility of the text. Could any neutral editor with an interest in post structuralist thought help here, it is just revert after revert and this warring is discouraging otherwise competent editors from contributing. N.B. Please do not post below if you are one of the warring editors as it will simply extend the same arguments into a diferent arena -- Artiquities ( talk) 06:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Max Weber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B ( talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed a complete rewrite of Logos, an article of interest to this project. Please see Talk:Logos#Proposed Re-Write. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Actual infinity could use some help... a lot of help, really. I'm not even sure where to classify it within Category:Metaphysics. It's also in Category:Philosophy of mathematics which is probably fine, though I don't think this is a particularly mathematical topic.
Actually, even a good philosophical (not historical!) reference would be great.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Any views on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
A controversy over the definition of amorality in relation to morality seems to have caused an edit war where one user has called for multiple bans despite the fact that WP:3RR appears to not have been broken. I have decided to stop editing the article for now, posted an RfC already, but think this needs greater immediate attention, especially with multiple complaints filled at ANI. If anyone can contribute consensus to the definition of amorality, they are encouraged to read and post to Talk:Morality. Thanks. -- 173.58.234.86 ( talk) 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've created a template for Wittgenstein, which can be seen at here if anyone would like to contribute.
The Rhymesmith ( talk) 09:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks really great! Are there any specific points I should judge? Btw: I think I am going to read "Some Remarks on Logical Form". Thanks for the list, which made me check it out! -- Faust ( talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I am trying to add two things that are (in my opinion) unjustly withheld by two editors. On the morality page it is only a reference, that I have had to reference, but still seems not enough and on the teleology page it is a general explanation of teleological ethics as opposed to deontological ethics, which I have severely referenced but is also not accepted by these users. In both articles a retracing of our steps is being undertaken. The request for references is continuously being restated while I have already done so. Perhaps more voices can solve this issue without letting it escalate even further. So, I would like to ask for some help in this. -- Faust ( talk) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As one of the other editors engaged with Faust on Talk:Morality I would like to second the request for outside involvement, and further request third opinions on our discussion at Talk:Deontological ethics, which appears to be closely related to his discussion at Talk:Teleology (in which I am not currently involved). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Aesthetics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Epistemology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Philosophical literature articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Philosophy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just started to work on this featured article to try to bring it up to current FA standards, and to try to present the philosophical arguments for and against ID, preferably using uninvolved academic sources. It is an article with a troubled history because of the strong POVs involved. I'm looking for any editors who might be willing to help with the writing and with finding philosophy sources, in particular editors with formal training in academic philosophy who are able and willing to write up arguments and counter-arguments carefully and neutrally. Anyone willing to help, please let me know on the article's talk page or on mine. Many thanks! SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Might I ask which parts are in dispute of being a POV? -- Faust ( talk) 08:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed to move this redirect to "spiritualism" rather than "metaphysics." Greg Bard ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The citations in this article are horrible. The two sources have never written anything before and are dubious at best. Judderwocky ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate behaviour. The article is said to be a part of this project. Borock ( talk) 15:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an article God gene, which deals with a gene which correlates to predisposition to spirituality. It is a popular press topic with little scientific backing so not very encyclopaedic. However, the topic about the human predisposition to search for metaphysical answers is central to several works of some philosophers, such as late Shopenhauer and Nitsche, if I am not mistaken, so I was hoping if someone could give the article a look and give it a check (e.g. terminology etc) and add a brief section linking to philosophical lines of thought? Or if it is too rubbish, add a warning tag. Thanks -- Squidonius ( talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The brief section on |"contemporary" (i.e., 20th century) philosophy in the main Philosophy article has been the subject of disagreement which does not appear to be going in any constructive direction. Since the three editors involved so far (I am one) are at loggerheads and one is now making 3RR noises at another, I implore other knowledgeable editors to advise. I strongly suggest reading the |relevant Talk page discussion. Thanks. 271828182 ( talk) 07:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Need some help. The Wiki page Edmund Montgomery has been mostly neglected since it was first up in 2006. I have been able to add much to it, in the way of biographical data and listing his papers. However, detailing the significance of his body of work is somewhat beyond my expertise to handle. The content of sections "Medicine" and "Philosophy" existed before my contributions, and could use expertise. Maile66 ( talk) 11:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a merge tag on the article Practical arguments that has been there since the GW Bush administration. I don't really know the difference (or if there even is a difference), so I'd appreciate if people who actually know something about Philosophy would comment on the talk page. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm just bringing attention to the talk I started here. Are we to suppose "atheism" strictly refers to strong atheism and not simply a lack of belief when discussing agnosticism?
Agnosticism correctly (as expected) notes it's not a stance of belief, but certainty. The neutralism article seems to fail to acknowledge that by assuming the spectrum of belief is theism<->agnosticism<->atheism, which is incorrect and contradicts other pages (and correct definition).
I don't understand what this position is attempting to clarify, and I think it should be removed; it's no different from an agnostic (weak) atheist, which is already covered. Thanks, GManNickG ( talk) 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The facts of Gottlob Frege's antisemitism that provoked an expression of shock and indignation on the part of the Frege scholar Michael Dummett, also provoked a yawn on the part of a wikieditor who has persistenly blocked attempts to restore the Dummett quote, see talk: Gottlob Frege. Tkuvho ( talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday the editor in question compared Frege to Shakespeare. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The title of the article on the mind body dichotomy has been changed to Mind-body problem. This was done with the only explanation that it's "far better" known as this. I think this is wrong, but am not knowledgable enough to revert. Anyone wish to weigh in? BashBrannigan ( talk) 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a little dubious about the recent removal by User talk:Woland1234 of
I am a little less dubious of removing psychoanalysis from philosophy of mind. That was probably appropriate. However I am not a big continental type, so I am wondering what the group thinks about these others. I am pretty sure that there is some degree of consideration of psychoanalysis in the field of aesthetics by philosophers. Greg Bard ( talk) 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've done some work on the above just recently. Would someone like to re-grade it? I believe it is still on "Start".-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
How does quality control work here? I'm trying to convince some layperson that the so-called " bare assertion fallacy" is not a fallacy and incoherent as formulated. But he keeps insisting that it is on the grounds that some college writing book, produced by non-philosophers for high school students, lists it. See the discussion. What the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 ( talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous editor; who is obviously a sockpuppet of the regular crowd that is hostile to the fields of philosophy, and logic insofar as philosophers study it; is on a campaign to remove "logic" as one of the relevant academic fields from Metalinguistic variable. There is a credible, reliable source plainly supporting this fact which he or she is baldly ignoring. Any attention to the issue would be appreciated. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The situation was sorted out like this: the computer science aspects are covered in an article "matesyntactic variable". The logical aspects are covered in "metavariable (logic)" which will probably be moved to "metavariable" shortly. Best Morton Shumway— talk 12:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC).
Similar to
WikiProject Biography/Military,
WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers is a joint task-force/work-group of this WikiProject and
WikiProject Biography. Should there not be a |philosopher-work-group=yes
parameter for the {{
WPBiography}} template also then? I have also
crossposted this post as the issue needs to be discussed in both quarters.__
meco (
talk)
22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I initially wanted to ask where in WP:PHILO's manual of style (if any) is the proper citation form for websites like the SEP. I still do, but in looking I also note the SEP's preferred citation style which I know I, for one, haven't been following consistently in terms of the information required (specifically the authors of each article, listed at the bottom of their pages). That should probably be noted somewhere w/ at least a link to that page. Thanks! BrideOfKripkenstein ( talk) 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Wikipedians, I'm looking for advice on how I can help build up philosophy articles on Wikipedia. I'm a bit lacking in inspiration, but am willing to help with both pesky cleanup, citation-hunting and the like. I've got access to a major academic library in the UK and have a Master's degree in philosophy, plus I've written some philosophy stuff at Citizendium, which I still contribute to. Is there anywhere I can list myself for potential mentoring or editing tasks or somewhere where people can put up "hunt me citations on x" type tasks that need access to academic libraries and databases related to philosophy? Sort of like Wikipedia:Reference Desk but with a bit less "hurr durr what's yer opinion?" questions and a few more things I might be able to productively help with? ;-) – Tom Morris ( talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a name for preferring mistaken activity to inactivity.
I'm thinking about this specifically in the context of historical alternative cancer treatments: people chose to undergo useless and often directly harmful treatments, because 'doing nothing' (or in modern times, doing only treatments with proven efficacy) was intolerable. I'd like to be able to link to a relevant Wikipedia article or two. Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just proposed the article A Greater Paradox be deleted because I am unable to verify it, the image is nothing to do with the ostensible subject, the single reference looks wrong, and the whole thing looks dodgy to me. I'd welcome someone either confirming that the article's subject is real, or confirming that the deletion proposal is sensible. Thanks for listening. RobertG ♬ talk 14:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam is not developing very well and is poorly written IMO compared to other "Criticism" articles. It needs help. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 19:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article index has a large number of links to disambiguation pages, most of which have few or no philosophical entries. For example, dablinks says that Index of philosophy articles (I–Q) has 127 dab pages.
I'm not sure if this page is maintained manually or by bot, but it would be nice if these could be cleaned up -- disambiguation pages removed and replaced, as needed, by zero or more articles from that page.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a debate between myself and User:271828182 concerning several points on the Philosophy article and discussion is not progressing well. A compromise should be possible, I think, but things are stuck with compromise proposals being reverted. I think third parties might be able to help a lot in order to bring some common sense and perspective to discussion. Does anyone have a moment?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The debate covers a lot of ground, is there any particular issue that you would like third parties to comment on? -- Logicalgregory ( talk) 02:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
What are the several points? Philogo ( talk) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've identified several sources by credentialled experts. There are probably more. Some rapid refactoring to replace the top-of-the-head content with no sources with a good verifiable stub supported by expert sources is needed. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for another philosophy article kerrzapp. But I've cited the sources for you to just grab the wikitext for, in the AFD discussion, so you can build upon what I've done. Uncle G ( talk) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I have been reviewing the article Stoicism, which has been nominated for GA. I have placed the review of the article "on hold" because there are some changes that need to be made to the article before I can pass it. I have notified the nominator as well another user who has made significant contributions to the article, but neither of them have been active on wikipedia recently. I was hoping another editor who is familiar with this topic could help this article along. The article is in fairly good shape, and I'd hate to fail it because of minor details. Please see the article's review page for more information. Any help would be appreciated! -- Tea with toast (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I created a new BLP article on the communication Theorist Robert T. Craig (scholar) and additional assistance would be appreciated. Coffeepusher ( talk) 04:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Entailment#Duplication of content. - dcljr ( talk) 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Person, user Walkinxyz and I are having a bit of a debate over how (or perhaps whether?) to define "person" in the opening sentence of the lede. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly what point he is trying to make, and can't think of anything else to say in response that isn't just repeating myself, so I'm hoping perhaps someone here can lend an outside eye to our discussion and help move things along.
Thanks. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
A debate over that identification over at Human is what brought me to the Person article to begin with, as at the time it began by stating that "A person is any particular human being" or some such, which is clearly non-neutral.
I have now had time to read the Pfhorrest and Walkinxyz discussion and am impressed by the amount of time and work they have put into this. However, I feel they are spending too much time on the head of the Person article when the body needs attention. Might I suggest that the head of the article be left as it for the moment and that a restructuring be undertaken on the body of the article? Perhaps when the body is improved and expanded it will be easier to see what the head should be like. -- Logicalgregory ( talk) 05:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think there would be much of a problem if the article was just about philosophy, so making Person into a summary article with links would be one solution. However, if we want to produce an article that is comprehensible to people with no knowledge of philosophy and who might only be using English as a second language, then the task is more difficult.
I was thinking that it might be possible to develop a template for cases such as this. My idea (which I have not worked through) would be to divide the articles into two sections based on the the distinction between connotation (sense, sinn) and denotation (reference, bedeutung). The first part to deal with what the word person means, the second to deal with instances of reference. The first section of the first part could deal with the etymology and lexicography of the term; the empirical study of its use in literature. The second section of the first part could be the philosophical analysis of the concept of a person; the analytic study of the term. The third section could be special meanings for the term, such as are found in law. The Second part would be concerned with what counts as a person, an alien? a computer? a brain dead human body? The development of a template (be this for the person article on its own or more generally) would have to be a group effort. I have no interest in doing this alone. -- Logicalgregory ( talk) 08:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed a new structure for the main body of the Person "article". This is in a new section in the discussion page of "person". Hopefully this can start a group discussion.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 07:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Pfhorrest, regarding your opening question, "WP:Wikipedia is not complete", or some such expression, is a guideline or policy. So if you just sit it out until the techological Singularity takes over all consciousness, the problem will go away, maybe not in platonic space, but here, since there will only be one editor left for a consensus first sentence definition, "I" think (no internal debates, please). You might also want to consult the initial U.S. Consitution, where you can find out what 3/5 of a person is. PPdd ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bad faith article needs help from any avaiable experienced editor; all bad faith in philosophy content was reverted twice. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just that if you believe that moral judgments are false and you make them you're making intentionally false statements, I think. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Could we have a few editors take a look at recent changes to Aristotle, Metaphysics (Aristotle) and Corpus Aristotelicum. The main discussion is at Talk:Aristotle. Thanks -- Snowded TALK 07:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the subject of the continuum a suitable topic for a separate page, or perhaps a section at continuum (theory)? Tkuvho ( talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_16#Category:Chinese_American_philosophers. AllyD ( talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:Philosophy#Requested move (2010). – xeno talk 13:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone impressed with Harry Frankfurt's "Bullsh*T" should agree that our articles on recent philosophy books can be less than admirable.
The article on Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition" would be a case in point: we aappear to have a section on Chap VI which neglects to mention its outrageously biased, fallactious and otherwise obnoxious attack on science.
The chapter is founded in the views of Heidegger, which in the 1st ed. go unmentioned.
The view of Einstein as of 1905 on matter, energy and later on invariance is comical were it not that she is now viewed as a prophet of everything from ecology to animal rights (she uses the word creature, but was as anthropocentric as Heidegger.)
Her chapter VI could be used for a Phil 100 Logic class for tracing deliberate ambiguities, false dichotomies, non-sequitors and the use of false premises.
Her conflation of all relativisms with general relativity is not simply comic. This book has been assigned reading in colleges for decades.
I suggest handing this article off to any grad student in philosophy of physics at CMU and asking Bryan Skyrms or Clark Glymour or Bas van Frassen to do a quick review (Yvon Gauthier in Montreal probably even knows the Heidegger required to debunk her Descartes interpretation). Her misrepresentation of Galileo's views is worse than that of Husserl, whose interest in phenomenology of Lebenswelt I, for one, otherwise share (here I see the influence of Heidegger and Fink on the aging Husserl.)
Joceyln Benoist might be willing to do a reading from the view of post-Heidegger philosophy in France.
With regard to feminism and phil: she appears ignorant of Emmy Noether at Bryn Mawr and has no mention of Susanne Langer among her mentions of Cassirer -even when talking about thought and symbol. See Heidegger in "Wegmarken" on Aristotle and physics. Compare Michael Oakeshott as a political thinker with views on modes of experience (her contemporary in many ways.)
See: philosophers as journalists versus philosophers an intellectuals. Arendt and the telescope.
Note: Isaiah Berlin both spoke Russian and knew Anna Akhmatova; cp Alasdair MaciIntyre's misrepresentation of Hilbert and a post for Noether in his book "Edith Stein". G. Robert Shiplett 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Nota bene: I proposed to merge these two categories so as to avoid unnecessary redundancy. Any thoughts? Greg Bard 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The following articles were proposed to be speedily deleted: Caribbean Philosophical Association, Mississippi Philosophical Association. I wonder if just the fact that these places have philosophical organizations is notable enough. Anyway, I would prefer to give these articles a chance, rather than have them deleted if possible. Any thoughts? Greg Bard 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I might be wrong but it seems like many diferent symbols are used for truth functionl operators on logic related papers (for example, unless i've missunderstood, it seems that both a both-ways arrow and a tripple equal are used to express a biconditional). I think the articals would be easier to read if one simbolic notation were used consistantly and if that notation were documented sombrero. This problem is especialy confusing becuase logicians from diferent countries use different notation. 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There has been some question of whether Atheism and Nontheism are distinct entities or should be merged. Please weigh-in here. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been some heavy editing to the article by a single user. The current version is not a real improvement, and quite a lot important (even if not well- or systematically-phrased) content been deleted. I have left a note concerning this at the article's talk page under a message of the user, and at the user's talk page as well, and I will have an eye on the issue. However, I would be glad if someone with an interest in that topic, and someone who is more experienced with formal issues (disambiguation link was deleted, three project boxes were moved to the bottom of the article) took a look as well. What does one do if a rollback to the old version is indicated? All the best, -- Morton Shumway ( talk) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_6#Category:Educational_philosophy. AllyD ( talk) 22:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Index of philosophy articles (A–C) series (four pages) should have the philosophers removed from them since they have their own list. It may make the series of pages short enough to be merged into one. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has asked for more information about the Mayan conception of the infinite. I asked the user to move the discussion to Talk:Infinity (philosophy) rather than Talk:Infinity, but I'm not sure that the page is being watched since it's relatively new. Any takers?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 03:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to establish a bot to perform routine maintenance of some WikiProject pages. (See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Philosobot). Greg Bard 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A few sections in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences have a seemingly inferior logic that perhaps affects a larger selection of subsections. Those interested who are proficient in theology, philosophy and logic, might give a helping hand by assessing relevant subsections and giving comment at the talk page HERE! Thank you for your attention, and otherwise happy editing! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the name of Axel Honneth should be added in the template as the actual successor of Jürgen Habermas as the head of critical theory of Frankfurt School. Furter than being just the director in charge of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, his ideas (above all those contained in his work The Struggle for Recognition) are already been widely discussed across Europe and I think he would soon be recognized worldwide for the same reason. I would've added it by myself but I want to wait for some other's opinions before proceeding with that. -- VentDuNord ( talk) 10:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am dubious about the value of the whole " works" category tree as it intersects with the philosophy category. I think I may propose to delete it, as it is completely the same as Category:Philosophical_literature. Are there works that aren't also literature (which cannot merely be placed noncontroversially under literature)? The intention of the literature category originally was to contain all of this stuff. Is there some point to this before I make that proposal? Greg Bard 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | The related Category:Metaphysicians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
![]() | The related Category:English metaphysicians has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
An editor from the mathematics department made this proposal. Greg Bard 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on intelligence and related issues, some of which I see are in the scope of this WikiProject. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. I would especially appreciate hearing about more sources that take a philosophical perspective or that broaden the discussion of intelligence to include nonhuman intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, everyone at WikiProject Philosophy! I am here to inform you that a proposal has been made to modify your barnstar, here. You are invited to participate in the discussion! Thanks for taking time to read this notice. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. The category Category:Philosophical works and its subcategories are currently nominated to be merged. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ xplicit 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm restarting this previously stillborn WikiProject. If you're interested, please join. There are still some very basic tasks which need doing, such as building the WikiProject page, and tagging core articles using the recently created Template:WikiProject Theology. Many thanks ! Claritas § 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmation bias, which is rated as mid-importance for this wikiproject, has passed FAC. This brings the total number of FA-class philosophy articles to 46. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This project claims History of painting within its area, so I am posting here for outside opinions. There is a disagreement on the History of painting talk page regarding the number of images within the article. I believe the majority of the 400 images need to be removed while other editors believe the article is fine as it is. Opinions appreciated. -- auburnpilot talk 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | The related Category:Philosophy_pages_by_type has been nominated for upmerging You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
![]() | The related Category:Philosophy-related_lists has been nominated for renaming You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Greg Bard ( talk) 20:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Newly created article on U.S. Heidegger editor & translator Jesse Glenn Gray needs help. He met with Heidegger and I think was lede editor on Heidegger for Harper & Row. Was friend of Hanna Arendt, who wrote fairly extensive intro on his most significant work "The Warriors." I've long suspected this memoir concerningn WWII influenced various writers and filmmakers whose work concerned Vietnam War.
Calamitybrook ( talk) 06:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just discovered that I worked on Fan loyalty ( AfD discussion). So I think it only just that the burden of working on Loyalty ( AfD discussion) be shared around a little. Feel free to muck in. There's lots to say. I've just read that Hegel thought loyalty to be unjustly founded, whereas Bismark boasted that it was a virtue that was peculiarly German. I'm sure that there's more in the same vein. If everyone does a paragraph each, we might have a good stub soon. Uncle G ( talk) 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just placed a prod tag on Portoesque logic, in case anyone here would like to review this action. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an on-going issue of mathematicians removing philosophy content from logic articles under the pretense of NPOV. Let me state for the record that coverage of content that is important to philosophers is not POV pushing, it is academic subject matter. Currently, there are a few of them pushing their view at Proposition (more evidence of this phenomenon at Tautology (logic)). In the proposed MOS there is provision for attempting to cover the "meta-perspective" (i.e. distinctions such as the type-token distinction are accounted for). This, it seems to me to be eminently responsible. However this is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of these editors. It is demonstrably their goal to remove any meta-perspective. This situation cannot stand. At some point we need to approve the MOS, and enforce it. Greg Bard 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
come on....I truely Belive that all knowleaged is impotant nomatter what the conscept or idea is. It is a vital part of our existace, with out the small things we cant have the bigger more complex things.... becuz..everything is made up from the same conscept, from that is were more idaes, conscepts, resources, and everyting else comes from. if we dont have the power, then we create it, thus takeing something in return as an equal... if we have the perception to know the outcome and its consequences, and in turn ther consequences' consequences...when the bad outcomes outway the good outcomes, only then do we have the right to take someting and make it seem like it nevered existed. GrimInsight NickHolcombe ( talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I have seen a number of strange things on the pages concerning ethics here. Most I can sort of handle myself, however, there is a page that needs to be redone completely because the very title is incorrect: consequantialism. This is a different word for utilism, not for teleological ethics. I have placed a quote on the talk page by the way. Anyway, I would like to have some help because it will require quite some work. Also somebody to discuss the matters with before fixing things that are not as broke as I might think they are. Is anybody willing to talk things over with me? I'll do the work myself if you are short on time (as I can image unfortunately). -- Faust ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the article on consequentionalism is actually on teleological ethics. There are a number of quite drastic cuts and pastes, not to mention renames involved. And I haven't even named the question of correct information. So, my intent is to first select what exactly is teleology and separate this from the consequentionalism. Then we can make an introduction to consequentionalism (utilism) and link to a more elaborate page if needs be. How well know are you in ethics? -- Faust ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone want to try and rewrite this? It's shocking in it's current state, as far away from NPOV as you could get. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:Use_of_italics_in_article_titles. Wareh ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a yawning impasse with several editors warring over this inevitably vexed issue. As if JD were reminding us all of the impossibility of the text. Could any neutral editor with an interest in post structuralist thought help here, it is just revert after revert and this warring is discouraging otherwise competent editors from contributing. N.B. Please do not post below if you are one of the warring editors as it will simply extend the same arguments into a diferent arena -- Artiquities ( talk) 06:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Max Weber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B ( talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed a complete rewrite of Logos, an article of interest to this project. Please see Talk:Logos#Proposed Re-Write. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Actual infinity could use some help... a lot of help, really. I'm not even sure where to classify it within Category:Metaphysics. It's also in Category:Philosophy of mathematics which is probably fine, though I don't think this is a particularly mathematical topic.
Actually, even a good philosophical (not historical!) reference would be great.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Any views on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
A controversy over the definition of amorality in relation to morality seems to have caused an edit war where one user has called for multiple bans despite the fact that WP:3RR appears to not have been broken. I have decided to stop editing the article for now, posted an RfC already, but think this needs greater immediate attention, especially with multiple complaints filled at ANI. If anyone can contribute consensus to the definition of amorality, they are encouraged to read and post to Talk:Morality. Thanks. -- 173.58.234.86 ( talk) 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've created a template for Wittgenstein, which can be seen at here if anyone would like to contribute.
The Rhymesmith ( talk) 09:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks really great! Are there any specific points I should judge? Btw: I think I am going to read "Some Remarks on Logical Form". Thanks for the list, which made me check it out! -- Faust ( talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I am trying to add two things that are (in my opinion) unjustly withheld by two editors. On the morality page it is only a reference, that I have had to reference, but still seems not enough and on the teleology page it is a general explanation of teleological ethics as opposed to deontological ethics, which I have severely referenced but is also not accepted by these users. In both articles a retracing of our steps is being undertaken. The request for references is continuously being restated while I have already done so. Perhaps more voices can solve this issue without letting it escalate even further. So, I would like to ask for some help in this. -- Faust ( talk) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As one of the other editors engaged with Faust on Talk:Morality I would like to second the request for outside involvement, and further request third opinions on our discussion at Talk:Deontological ethics, which appears to be closely related to his discussion at Talk:Teleology (in which I am not currently involved). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Aesthetics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Epistemology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Philosophical literature articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Philosophy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just started to work on this featured article to try to bring it up to current FA standards, and to try to present the philosophical arguments for and against ID, preferably using uninvolved academic sources. It is an article with a troubled history because of the strong POVs involved. I'm looking for any editors who might be willing to help with the writing and with finding philosophy sources, in particular editors with formal training in academic philosophy who are able and willing to write up arguments and counter-arguments carefully and neutrally. Anyone willing to help, please let me know on the article's talk page or on mine. Many thanks! SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Might I ask which parts are in dispute of being a POV? -- Faust ( talk) 08:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed to move this redirect to "spiritualism" rather than "metaphysics." Greg Bard ( talk) 15:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The citations in this article are horrible. The two sources have never written anything before and are dubious at best. Judderwocky ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate behaviour. The article is said to be a part of this project. Borock ( talk) 15:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an article God gene, which deals with a gene which correlates to predisposition to spirituality. It is a popular press topic with little scientific backing so not very encyclopaedic. However, the topic about the human predisposition to search for metaphysical answers is central to several works of some philosophers, such as late Shopenhauer and Nitsche, if I am not mistaken, so I was hoping if someone could give the article a look and give it a check (e.g. terminology etc) and add a brief section linking to philosophical lines of thought? Or if it is too rubbish, add a warning tag. Thanks -- Squidonius ( talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The brief section on |"contemporary" (i.e., 20th century) philosophy in the main Philosophy article has been the subject of disagreement which does not appear to be going in any constructive direction. Since the three editors involved so far (I am one) are at loggerheads and one is now making 3RR noises at another, I implore other knowledgeable editors to advise. I strongly suggest reading the |relevant Talk page discussion. Thanks. 271828182 ( talk) 07:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Need some help. The Wiki page Edmund Montgomery has been mostly neglected since it was first up in 2006. I have been able to add much to it, in the way of biographical data and listing his papers. However, detailing the significance of his body of work is somewhat beyond my expertise to handle. The content of sections "Medicine" and "Philosophy" existed before my contributions, and could use expertise. Maile66 ( talk) 11:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a merge tag on the article Practical arguments that has been there since the GW Bush administration. I don't really know the difference (or if there even is a difference), so I'd appreciate if people who actually know something about Philosophy would comment on the talk page. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm just bringing attention to the talk I started here. Are we to suppose "atheism" strictly refers to strong atheism and not simply a lack of belief when discussing agnosticism?
Agnosticism correctly (as expected) notes it's not a stance of belief, but certainty. The neutralism article seems to fail to acknowledge that by assuming the spectrum of belief is theism<->agnosticism<->atheism, which is incorrect and contradicts other pages (and correct definition).
I don't understand what this position is attempting to clarify, and I think it should be removed; it's no different from an agnostic (weak) atheist, which is already covered. Thanks, GManNickG ( talk) 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The facts of Gottlob Frege's antisemitism that provoked an expression of shock and indignation on the part of the Frege scholar Michael Dummett, also provoked a yawn on the part of a wikieditor who has persistenly blocked attempts to restore the Dummett quote, see talk: Gottlob Frege. Tkuvho ( talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday the editor in question compared Frege to Shakespeare. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The title of the article on the mind body dichotomy has been changed to Mind-body problem. This was done with the only explanation that it's "far better" known as this. I think this is wrong, but am not knowledgable enough to revert. Anyone wish to weigh in? BashBrannigan ( talk) 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a little dubious about the recent removal by User talk:Woland1234 of
I am a little less dubious of removing psychoanalysis from philosophy of mind. That was probably appropriate. However I am not a big continental type, so I am wondering what the group thinks about these others. I am pretty sure that there is some degree of consideration of psychoanalysis in the field of aesthetics by philosophers. Greg Bard ( talk) 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've done some work on the above just recently. Would someone like to re-grade it? I believe it is still on "Start".-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
How does quality control work here? I'm trying to convince some layperson that the so-called " bare assertion fallacy" is not a fallacy and incoherent as formulated. But he keeps insisting that it is on the grounds that some college writing book, produced by non-philosophers for high school students, lists it. See the discussion. What the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.217.26 ( talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous editor; who is obviously a sockpuppet of the regular crowd that is hostile to the fields of philosophy, and logic insofar as philosophers study it; is on a campaign to remove "logic" as one of the relevant academic fields from Metalinguistic variable. There is a credible, reliable source plainly supporting this fact which he or she is baldly ignoring. Any attention to the issue would be appreciated. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The situation was sorted out like this: the computer science aspects are covered in an article "matesyntactic variable". The logical aspects are covered in "metavariable (logic)" which will probably be moved to "metavariable" shortly. Best Morton Shumway— talk 12:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC).
Similar to
WikiProject Biography/Military,
WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers is a joint task-force/work-group of this WikiProject and
WikiProject Biography. Should there not be a |philosopher-work-group=yes
parameter for the {{
WPBiography}} template also then? I have also
crossposted this post as the issue needs to be discussed in both quarters.__
meco (
talk)
22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I initially wanted to ask where in WP:PHILO's manual of style (if any) is the proper citation form for websites like the SEP. I still do, but in looking I also note the SEP's preferred citation style which I know I, for one, haven't been following consistently in terms of the information required (specifically the authors of each article, listed at the bottom of their pages). That should probably be noted somewhere w/ at least a link to that page. Thanks! BrideOfKripkenstein ( talk) 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Wikipedians, I'm looking for advice on how I can help build up philosophy articles on Wikipedia. I'm a bit lacking in inspiration, but am willing to help with both pesky cleanup, citation-hunting and the like. I've got access to a major academic library in the UK and have a Master's degree in philosophy, plus I've written some philosophy stuff at Citizendium, which I still contribute to. Is there anywhere I can list myself for potential mentoring or editing tasks or somewhere where people can put up "hunt me citations on x" type tasks that need access to academic libraries and databases related to philosophy? Sort of like Wikipedia:Reference Desk but with a bit less "hurr durr what's yer opinion?" questions and a few more things I might be able to productively help with? ;-) – Tom Morris ( talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a name for preferring mistaken activity to inactivity.
I'm thinking about this specifically in the context of historical alternative cancer treatments: people chose to undergo useless and often directly harmful treatments, because 'doing nothing' (or in modern times, doing only treatments with proven efficacy) was intolerable. I'd like to be able to link to a relevant Wikipedia article or two. Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just proposed the article A Greater Paradox be deleted because I am unable to verify it, the image is nothing to do with the ostensible subject, the single reference looks wrong, and the whole thing looks dodgy to me. I'd welcome someone either confirming that the article's subject is real, or confirming that the deletion proposal is sensible. Thanks for listening. RobertG ♬ talk 14:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam is not developing very well and is poorly written IMO compared to other "Criticism" articles. It needs help. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 19:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article index has a large number of links to disambiguation pages, most of which have few or no philosophical entries. For example, dablinks says that Index of philosophy articles (I–Q) has 127 dab pages.
I'm not sure if this page is maintained manually or by bot, but it would be nice if these could be cleaned up -- disambiguation pages removed and replaced, as needed, by zero or more articles from that page.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a debate between myself and User:271828182 concerning several points on the Philosophy article and discussion is not progressing well. A compromise should be possible, I think, but things are stuck with compromise proposals being reverted. I think third parties might be able to help a lot in order to bring some common sense and perspective to discussion. Does anyone have a moment?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The debate covers a lot of ground, is there any particular issue that you would like third parties to comment on? -- Logicalgregory ( talk) 02:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
What are the several points? Philogo ( talk) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've identified several sources by credentialled experts. There are probably more. Some rapid refactoring to replace the top-of-the-head content with no sources with a good verifiable stub supported by expert sources is needed. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for another philosophy article kerrzapp. But I've cited the sources for you to just grab the wikitext for, in the AFD discussion, so you can build upon what I've done. Uncle G ( talk) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I have been reviewing the article Stoicism, which has been nominated for GA. I have placed the review of the article "on hold" because there are some changes that need to be made to the article before I can pass it. I have notified the nominator as well another user who has made significant contributions to the article, but neither of them have been active on wikipedia recently. I was hoping another editor who is familiar with this topic could help this article along. The article is in fairly good shape, and I'd hate to fail it because of minor details. Please see the article's review page for more information. Any help would be appreciated! -- Tea with toast (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I created a new BLP article on the communication Theorist Robert T. Craig (scholar) and additional assistance would be appreciated. Coffeepusher ( talk) 04:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Entailment#Duplication of content. - dcljr ( talk) 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Person, user Walkinxyz and I are having a bit of a debate over how (or perhaps whether?) to define "person" in the opening sentence of the lede. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding exactly what point he is trying to make, and can't think of anything else to say in response that isn't just repeating myself, so I'm hoping perhaps someone here can lend an outside eye to our discussion and help move things along.
Thanks. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
A debate over that identification over at Human is what brought me to the Person article to begin with, as at the time it began by stating that "A person is any particular human being" or some such, which is clearly non-neutral.
I have now had time to read the Pfhorrest and Walkinxyz discussion and am impressed by the amount of time and work they have put into this. However, I feel they are spending too much time on the head of the Person article when the body needs attention. Might I suggest that the head of the article be left as it for the moment and that a restructuring be undertaken on the body of the article? Perhaps when the body is improved and expanded it will be easier to see what the head should be like. -- Logicalgregory ( talk) 05:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think there would be much of a problem if the article was just about philosophy, so making Person into a summary article with links would be one solution. However, if we want to produce an article that is comprehensible to people with no knowledge of philosophy and who might only be using English as a second language, then the task is more difficult.
I was thinking that it might be possible to develop a template for cases such as this. My idea (which I have not worked through) would be to divide the articles into two sections based on the the distinction between connotation (sense, sinn) and denotation (reference, bedeutung). The first part to deal with what the word person means, the second to deal with instances of reference. The first section of the first part could deal with the etymology and lexicography of the term; the empirical study of its use in literature. The second section of the first part could be the philosophical analysis of the concept of a person; the analytic study of the term. The third section could be special meanings for the term, such as are found in law. The Second part would be concerned with what counts as a person, an alien? a computer? a brain dead human body? The development of a template (be this for the person article on its own or more generally) would have to be a group effort. I have no interest in doing this alone. -- Logicalgregory ( talk) 08:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed a new structure for the main body of the Person "article". This is in a new section in the discussion page of "person". Hopefully this can start a group discussion.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 07:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Pfhorrest, regarding your opening question, "WP:Wikipedia is not complete", or some such expression, is a guideline or policy. So if you just sit it out until the techological Singularity takes over all consciousness, the problem will go away, maybe not in platonic space, but here, since there will only be one editor left for a consensus first sentence definition, "I" think (no internal debates, please). You might also want to consult the initial U.S. Consitution, where you can find out what 3/5 of a person is. PPdd ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bad faith article needs help from any avaiable experienced editor; all bad faith in philosophy content was reverted twice. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just that if you believe that moral judgments are false and you make them you're making intentionally false statements, I think. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)