Talk:Metaphilosophy

problem with the editing tools

There is a problem with the editing tools. A heavily attributed and carefully written rewrite of this entry (which would have also undone the 'vandalism') was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied. This is a damn shame as it is not going to get written again. As it was, all I felt like doing was adding the 'see also' links. Consider this a bug report about the tools, and a complaint about the process of reverting. In general, silly edits get noticed and new people are encouraged to rewrite by their presence. Therefore, there ought to be a wait before any reversion, to see if someone else has something intelligent to say on the topic. What I had to say on it, was destroyed, and I don't care enough about this topic to write it again.

So, fix the tools.

You should have been presented with a screen called "Edit Conflict". Your version of the text would have been in the second edit window. If that window is still open then your version of the text is still in it. If you closed that window then you just deleted your own work. BTW, most of us use external text editors to make substantial changes to articles. Otherwise browser crashes tend to destroy hours worth of work. --mav 23:08 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

The most common problems I have seen that lose an edit are always some stupid browser problem (or an operator error, like clicking the "back" button while editing), not Wikipedia. I've seen the browser:

1. Dump the entire edit in transmission.
2. Insert trash characters that caused all or part of the article to appear to have been lost (but you could still find it if you edited again and removed the trash characters).
3. Discard the end of a long article and refuse to let you do anything but deletions yourself.

If you absolutely insist on writing an entire long article from scratch in the browser window... do frequent saves (e.g., every paragraph. BTW, This also reduces the probability of an "Edit Conflict" hit.). And remember to double check your edits with the "show preview" button too, to make sure it is formatting correctly. -- RTC 23:56 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

"was destroyed apparently since it was submitted just as the 'revert' was applied..." -- do you mean someone did a "rollback"? That doesn't remove the version; rather it inserts a copy of the old version at the head of the page history. Just tested this on the sandbox. -- Tarquin 00:03 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC) Computers fail because, we people, fail and we made them. But if you do want to know about some philosophy theme you will continue to search, no matter what happend. No obstacle, can be so great that can not be reach by our minds, there is an inmense power in our capacity of reaching what is apparently out of reach. Metaphilosophy is going beyond our limitations, is expand our inteligence over any cincunstances, is not to have limits and is to be free.

Pejorative tone

The article is badly skewed. Before asking how meta-philosophy is possible, and criticizing it, it should be explained a bit better what it is.

Skewed representation

I cannot see a single use of a philosopher outside the traditionally analytic school. Continental philosophical tradition, critical theory, and other writers, thinkers, and critics have meaningful input on this subject which merits documentation as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDSavage8 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

hyphenated?

"Metaphilosophy" should not have a hyphen.

The tradition within philosophy, eg. Blackwell's Metaphilosophy, the most prominent metaphilosophical journal, is to not hypenate the term and I do not know any philosphers who do hypenate "metaphilosophy".

False Claim

In the secion on the so-called "linguistic" metaphilosophical stance it says, "Criticised as being vacuous and without relevance, the logical study of meaningful language is in decline in many universities." This is absolutely false. I am not someone to delve into debates about the virtues of Contintenal vs. Analytic styles of philosophy, but I don't think this is really what is at heart. The claim as stated expresses that the study of logical form and theories of meaning is in decline, which is simply not true. These form the backbone of the linguistic study of semantics, which is a rapidly growing field of study that has made major scientific advancements since the time of Chomsky. Furthermore, as a statement about philosophy it is also false. Analytic philosophy, which is associated with the "linguistic turn" is still the dominant trend throughout the English-speaking world. That means it is the trend at the very large majority of universities throughout North America, the UK, and Australia. Colin 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Seems to me like this article could use a clean-up. I'll have the necessary time to do the research but only in a month or so - if no-one else is willing at the moment. In the meantime, any suggestions?

• Introduction: could be a bit more compact, but it's okay I guess, though I'd remove "Philosophy is, however, commonly understood to encapsulate metaphilosophy, so the distinction is seldom made." as the distinction is standard if not always made.
• Taxonomy: theology is often considered as a seperate discipline, so perhaps "(some include theology)" or an explanation of why both disciplines (philosophy and theology) have diverged in modern times.
• Existing stances: awful. The idea itself isn't bad but I'd include it in an independent overview of each of the specific questions (nature of philosophy, aims, relation to everyday life, ?) There is also no reason at all to make a section both for existing stances and metaphilosophical writings.

Possible (new) categorization:

• Introduction
• Aims of philosophy: nature of philosophy; relationship between philosophy and life/sciences; historical overview of stances
• Philosophical method: the rationalism/empiricism distinction, experimental philosophy, to a priori or not to a priori (as e.g. in naturalized versus traditional epistemology; but also the broader debate about whether philosophy has a distinct method or a distinct subject-matter); genealogy and other methods of criticizing the methods, aims and premisses of a particular type of philosophy.
• Progress in philosophy (and perhaps other smaller problems like these, if there are any?)
• Suggested reading list would be nice.

Other ideas?

Stdbrouw 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

this sentence is exceptionally murky: One of the precursors of the cybernetic meta-philosophical relativisation of philosophical systems was the Polish science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem.

Language Truth and Logic

Since it was published in 1936, I have taken the liberty of chaning "post war debut" to "book". KD Tries Again 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Edit Jan 28 / 07

I've done some reordering of the article, added a few things and removed the stupid reference to linguistic philosophy as being vacuous. The article is still crummy and my additions aren't top notch themselves, but overall I think it's a improvement. Too bad few others seem to be interested in improving the article; considering that it might be a good idea to create a somewhat smaller but better article - something on my to-do list. Stdbrouw 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Demarcation problem?

Certainly the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be a method to demark philosophy from pseudophilosophy. Otherwise what is the point of metaphilosophy? Gkochanowsky (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy can have other points. Such as illuminating on the various uses of philosophy. Someone might find it more interesting to talk about the use of philosophy than to talk about what distinguishes philosophy (from pseudophilosophy). So I think it is a matter of choice or opinion what would be the most important business of metaphilosophy. So I wouldn't state that it is so that the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be to find a method to demarcate philosophy from pseudophilosophy.

You must mean that it doesn't make much sense to philosophize about philosophy if you do not even know what counts as philosophy and what doesn't. But I'm inclined to say you can work with the term 'philosophy' without having a precise definition in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Definition of philosophy

Please come visit Talk:Definition_of_philosophy#Yet_more_merger_discussion for discussion of merging Definition of philosophy to here. Since only one article links to that page, and discussion of the merger there has thus been extremely slow, I'm trawling for more input so maybe some consensus can finally be reached there. I'm also going to place a merge proposal template on both articles, and request input from Talk:Philosophy as well. -Pfhorrest (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left on the philosophy talk pages giving reasons reason against merging this article into the philosphy article. Time would be better spent improving this article if you have knowledge of Meta-philosphy, or the philosophy article if you have knowledge of philosophy. In my reasing a tiny majorty of philosphy tezxt or philospher's time has been spent discussing the antuire of philsophy itslef. When I was first year undergrad a lecturer suggested that the best way to learn about what philosophy is, is to do some. Wise advice: that's what most philosophers in fact have done, from Plato though to Wittgenstein, just as most scientists get on with science and rarely discuss philosophy of science. Most philosphers would welcome a definition of philosophy, and scientists a definition of science, musicians a definition of music, lovers a definition of joy, with about the same entuisiasm as twenty years in prison without parole, and would in any case take no notice of it whatsoever. --Philogo 13:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a merger of this article with Philosophy, but rather a merger of Definition of philosophy, which is a major metaphilosophical topic, into this article.

And not that it matters, but I disagree with your opinion that most philosophers wouldn't care about metaphilosophy. As this article itself says, many works of philosophy imply metaphilosophical positions in the process of stating their other positions. Besides which, philosophy is largely about second-order, reflexive, "meta" studies to begin with. -Pfhorrest (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see much material of any value at Definition of philosophy so oppose merger. If you have ideas on how to improve thisa article be bold! I didn't say "most philosophers wouldn't care about metaphilosophy" did I? Attention to detail or your tilting at windmills, I always say. There's a great Western (set in Australia) where, after a dual, the winner says to the vanquished "I said I don't much care for a Colt 45; I didn't say I didn't know how to use it". --Philogo 23:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the article Definition of philosophy now redirects to this article. The material in the former is pasted below, so that editors who find material therin of some value can use it in this article.--Philogo (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger preliminary transfer

The material in the article "Definition of philosophy" (which now redirects to this article) was as below

The definition of philosophy is a difficult matter, and many definitions of philosophy begin by stating its difficulty. A review of standard reference works suggests that there is a broad agreement among the philosophers who write these reference works, as to what the definition actually is.

This article lists the main points of agreement, and points of disagreement where notable. Some describe philosophy as the art of saying, not doing, talking about action, not taking action, theorizing, and not utilizing; the art of being unproductive, not productive.

1. Philosophy is difficult to define. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy () says that most interesting definitions of philosophy are controversial. Philosophy: The Basics () says it is "notoriously difficult". Mastering Philosophy says there is "no straightforward definition".
2. Method: The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy () says the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality. OCP says it is explicitly rationally critical thinking 'of a more or less systematic kind'. The Collins English Dictionary () mentions the use of 'rational argument'. Modern Thomistic Philosophy () says 'natural light of reason'. PTB says that the most distinctive feature of philosophy is its use of logical argument. There is some agreement, therefore, that the philosophical method is rational, systematic and critical, or characterised by logical argument.
3. Intrinsic Character:
   • Philosophy can be distinguished from empirical science and religion. The Penguin Encyclopedia () says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation. MTP says philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but uses reason, "without reference to sensible observation and experiments". By contrast, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy states that "the late 20th-century... prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry."
   • 'Second-order' nature: PDP says it is a "common view" that philosophy enquiry is second order, having concepts, theories and presupposition as its subject matter. OCP says it is "thinking about thinking", and that philosophy has a "generally second-order character", being reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking. ODP says that in philosophy we study rather than use the concepts that structure our thinking, and that this is second-order reflection. The ODP admits that philosophy has a second-order character, but also warns that "the borderline between such 'second-order' reflection, and ways of practising the first-order discipline itself, is not always clear: philosophical problems may be tamed by the advance of a discipline, and the conduct of a discipline may be swayed by philosophical reflection". TYP also uses the expression 'second-order'.
   • Misleading etymology: Only PE gives "Love of wisdom" as a possible meaning. PTB says the etymology is "not much help". Other works mention the etymology without saying that it exhausts the meaning of the term. [The term philosophy is translated from Greek as "Love of wisdom"] [A philosopher argues; that wisdom exists, or that knowledge can be attained.]
   • Critical nature: OCP says philosophy is critical thinking. PTB says that philosophy examines the beliefs we take for granted. ERHP says "in English-speaking philosophy (and much European philosophy too) you are taught not to take anything on trust, particularly if it seems obvious and undeniable".
   • What it is not: PTB says philosophy is NOT mysticism or about outlook on life.
4. Subject matter: PDP says the subject matter of philosophy is "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality". PE says "the most general questions about our universe and our place in it". MTP: The "absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates" or "the fundamental reasons or causes of all things". CED lists the branches of philosophy (see below). ODP says it is the investigation of the most general and abstract features of the world and the categories with which we think, in order to "lay bare their foundations and presuppositions". MP says it is the study of ultimate reality. TYP says that philosophy is about 'the big questions'.
5. Branches: These are metaphysics (PE, OCP, MTP, CED, IP) epistemology (CED, MTP, OCP, IP), ethics (OCP, MTP, IP, CED), logic or semantics (PE, CED), cosmology (MTP), theory of mind (MTP), political philosophy (IP), aesthetics (IP). Hence there is a broad agreement that metaphysics, epistemology and ethics and possibly logic are the main branches of philosophy.
6. Goals: PDP says the goals of philosophy are "the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". MTP says "to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates". CED says "making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs". MP says the purpose of philosophy is to unify and transcend the insights given by science and religion.

==References==<!-- This section is linked from Definition of philosophy -->

The names of authors are given only where the book is not a reference work.

• An Editor Recalls Some Hopeless Papers, by Wilfrid Hodges (from The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic Volume 4, Number 1, March 1998 (ERHP)
• Collins English Dictionary (CED)
• Introducing Philosophy (IP)

• Modern Thomistic Philosophy R. Phillips (MTP)
• Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (ODP)
• Penguin Encyclopedia (PE),
• Philosophy Made Simple (PMS)
• Teach Yourself Philosophy (TYP)

Merger begins, here is my plan

I've integrated the content of definition of philosophy into the body of metaphilosophy and cleaned it up a tad. It still needs tighter integration with the rest of the material here, e.g.:

• section 4.4 Method should probably be integrated into section 3 Philosophical method
• sections 4.3 What philosophy is not, 4.5 Intrinsic character, 4.6 Second-order nature, and 4.7 Critical nature should probably be integrated with section 2 Aims and nature of philosophy
  • however, I think perhaps that section (2) ought to be split into two sections, one on the nature of philosophy, to merge with the aforementioned subsections, and one on the aims of philosophy, to merge with section 4.10 Goals and section 5 Progress in philosophy.
    • furthermore, "empiricism or rationalism" seems much more of a question of method than of nature, so I think that should be moved.
• sections 4.8 Subject matter and 4.9 Branches should probably be integrated with section 1 Taxonomy of philosophical problems
• I think the first two sections of Definition of philosophy should stay under that heading, perhaps not even broken down into subsections, and that Definition of philosophy should be the first section in this article.

Thus in the end I hope to have an outline about like so:

1. Definition of philosophy (controversial subject, but some agreement, misleading etymology, etc)
2. Nature of philosophy (incl. "Intrinsic character" & "What philosophy is not"; contrast with religion and science, mysticism and lifestance)
   1. Second-order nature
   2. Critical nature
3. Aims (or goals) of philosophy
   1. Progress in philosophy
4. Philosophical methods
   1. Phronetic
   2. Epistemic (incl. "empiricism or rationalism")
   3. Analytic
   4. Rethinking intuition
   5. Computational philosophy
5. Philosophical taxonomy
6. Metaphilosophical writings
7. References etc

I'll likely be whittling away at this project for a while but anyone else feel free to jump in and help if you want... --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the overnumerous and superfluous section headings and changed the title. If the section intends only (or mainly) what dictionaries or encyclopedias have to say then that should be made clear. Dictionaries are interesting to an extent, but if one were interested to know more about (say) the concept of "force" then one would be better of consulting and citing Newton or reliable text books in Physics rather that the OED. To which end I have added a section giving a fairly comprehensive list of quotations from authors of note concerning the nature of philosophy.--Philogo (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of superfluous section headings, I have temporarily moved your section of quotes to Metaphilosophy/quotations because it was absolutely destroying the table of contents with so many subheadings. I very much appreciate you providing us with that material, however it doesn't look quite ready for the article yet; thus the sub-page, from which we can move the content as we integrate it with the article. Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotations I think are a useful resource--Philogo (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they are a very useful resource, and that is what I was thanking you for. I just don't think a raw dump of them on the article page is appropriate. With them on a sub-page, we can use them as a resource to improve the article page without overwhelming the more cleanly organized and formatted material on the rest of the page. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have finished my work on this merger for now, after many extensive edits and much cleanup and expansion tonight. It didn't quite go according to my above plan but I think this is an improvement over that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy of philosophical problems

"There are many kinds of philosophy, dependent on the numerous human cultures. What is not controversial are the general types of problems included in philosophy."

Too dang funny. Gkochanowsky (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Progress in philosophy

This section strikes me as being particularly weak, POV and OR, lacking citations and is largely or wholly duplicates material in the article Progress (philosophy). --Philogo (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it (and Progress (philosophy) in general) still needs a lot of work, but it is a metaphilosophical topic and so deserves coverage on this page. Duplicating sumamry content from other pages is what the {{main}} template is for. Philosophy has a section on the history of philosophy despite there being a History of philosophy article.

Because the article is so essay like and POV editor's time is spent deliberating over whter to keep or improve essentailly weak material. I suggest instead weed out or precise the week and repeitive and POV material to make room for and attract decent material. A tabla rasa is more attractive to contributions that reams of waffle. --Philogo (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is POV about it. It presents both sides of the issue without favoring either. It is in desperate need of citations, quotes, and such, but for a from-whole-cloth summary of the debate about progress in philosophy, it seems pretty good to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It just reads like a personal essay, and without any citations, OR. Also I do not see the point in copying so much material (even if it were good) from the main article. The porr reader cliks the link and has to read teh same stuff all voer gain! Why not delete the two subsections and leave the reader who want to know more to read the main article? An artilce can only be so long and there is more interesting material to set out and cite. I feel much the same about all the quotations from dictionaires. You wud not find such in artilces on scientific subjects for e.g. We should be citing proper authors not dictionaries. It all impoverishes the article and demeans the subject. --Philogo (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to leave un-cited content which is not blatantly false or nonsense when I come across it, unless it interrupts the flow of the article (e.g. random assertions floating in between paragraphs), and just tag it in need of citations. That way the information is there, readers know it is of dubious veracity, and future editors can cite it or replace it with an equivalent cited passage later.

And while I generally agree that citing dictionaries and other encyclopedias should be avoided in an encyclopedia, I think in the case of this article it is actually rather appropriate. Consider the Bertrand Russel quote you added: he says we can't just pull a definition out of a dictionary without it being controversial, and he's right. However, we can survey a number of dictionaries and identify those features which are not controversial, before moving on to more controversial viewpoints cited to authors advancing those various points of view, e.g. your quote of Wittgenstein on philosophical method. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On that topic, I've also added a main template for Philosophical method to the methods section here, and we should work on synchronizing content between them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a world without philosophy, now imagine what progress it has made based on this 'world'.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this an article about philosophy or about metaphilosophy?

I think the article really needs some direction. Most of it is about philosophy, not metaphilosophy. One does not learn much about metaphilosophy. Can anyone help? 82.247.114.156 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)R Casati

Metaphilosophy is about philosophy; it is the philosophy of philosophy. As such, this article discusses various questions about philosophy itself, and various proposed answers to those questions. Perhaps it could use a bigger lede to explain this in more detail. Any suggestions? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No great suggestions, unfortunately, but maybe more references to existing metaphilosophical positions are in order? (I mildly disagree about metaphiloosphy being the philosophy of philosophy. Being about philosophy does not make metaphilosophy philosophical. Maybe there is nothing philosophical in metaphilosophy. Nothing of importance, but I would not be so categorical here. ) 82.247.114.156 (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) R. Casati

What about the philosophy of meta-philosophy? After all how can we trust meta-philosophy on philosophy if we don't study the philosophy of philosophy itself?--207.68.234.177 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article has multiple issues, hence the tag. First of all one should learn about the views whether philosophy is a maximal system i.e. everything about philosophy is just philosophy or not. Obviously metaphilosophy claims things to be otherwise and this particular claim should be made clear with references and examples.195.96.229.83 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultra Meta Philosophy

Can't we just end up with an endless cycle? For example the study of the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta Philosophy) and the study of the philosophy on the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta-Meta Philosophy), etc, thus making it pointless?--207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The philosophy of metaphilosophy would itself be metaphilosophy still. Any reflective system will loop like that. For example: awareness of your own self-awareness is still just self-awareness. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking 'metaphilosophy' to mean something outside philosophy

The article starts with suggesting that 'metaphilosophy' means a discipline about philosophy outside philosophy. "Metaphilosophy relies on the idea that it might be productive to distinguish some general pronouncements about philosophy from philosophy itself." Later in the article it says that there is no consensus whether a philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy is possible. Still, this article does use the term 'metaphilosophy' as meaning 'philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy' as is the case in this quote: " In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote that there is not a metaphilosophy.[31]". But can't we just use metaphilosophy to mean 'philosophy of philosophy' leaving it a question on itself whether it is in or outside philosohy or whether there is philosophy on philosophy outside philosophy AND philosophy on philosophy inside philosophy? Or is metaphilosophy already an established term which by definition means 'philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy'? The article refers to Rescher and suggests that he supports the idea of philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy, is this really the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Methods of Philosophy starting with a quote from Wittgenstein

Even though the quote of Wittgenstein that opens the section on 'the methods of philosophy' literally uses the words "the methods of philosophy" I don't think the quote illuminates on the methods of philosophy. The quote just shows that Wittgenstein thinks philosophy is only 'meaningful' when it is used to attack (traditional) philosophy. So the quote shows a hostile stance to philosophy rather than explaining the methods of philosophy. I suggest removing the quote. (There is a bit too much Wittgenstein in the article anyway right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

As far as I can see this article replicates much of the material in Philosophy , is generally written like an essay and lacks substantial citations. Maybe it should be merged?----Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Other than the "Areas of inquiry" section on Philosophy, what of any of the material on this article is replicated there?

Also I seem to recall there being a metaphilosophy section on Philosophy and that content being moved here, or something to the effect of "keep that metaphilosophy stuff off this article" over there, so I doubt a merger would go well with editors there.

I myself oppose a merger, as metaphilosophy is a notable topic on its own, and the definition of philosophy article that was one of the predecessors of this article (it was merged to here but predated this article name) was one of the first articles on Wikipedia, i.e. we have always had an article on this subject.

If you think this article needs improvement, please tag it appropriately and lets see if we can't get it improved. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole of the "nature of philosophy" section is covered in the main article and with far less synthesis. The taxonomy section again but is poor as its far from complete. The we have the methods section which is partial and could be a new section. Etymology and History duplicate. Its a content fork! Added to which the term itself is not in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy - I can check others later ----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added a reputable source to the introduction as requested by Byelf2007 and tried to rewrite the first paragraph of the section Metaphilosophy#Rationale in a less scoffing and less irritating manner. The source Contemporary metaphilosophy is much better than the WP article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added links to the sources for the quotations in the section Metaphilosophy#Rationale, put everything in template form, added missing information about the sources, and softened the text introducing these quotes to be less contentious. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I do feel that this article has a purpose as a stand-alone article, and the section Metaphilosophy#Rationale and the source Contemporary Metaphilosophy] support its existence as a stand-alone article. No merge. Brews ohare (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Brews, that was very helpful! --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The opening reference was not really up to the task. It's an article by someone that uses the word in its title. It's not a reliable third party sources which establishes the notability of the subject. The fact that there is a journal with that title might be enough but ideally we want something from a book or article which provides an overview of the subject as a whole. If there is no other support for a a merge then the article needs some drastic improvement. A lot of it is a coat rack or simply discussions of philosophy rather than a summary of metaphilosophy as a subject. I made some changes along those lines and will look (when I get home and have access to my Library) to the various general reference books to see if it is referenced. On the basis of the references so far used it is a particular take by a small number of philosophers not a generally accepted position. If that is the case then it needs to be reflected in the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate source

In a recent edit Snowded removed this citation:

Nicholas Joll (November 18, 2010). "Contemporary Metaphilosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP).

with the comment

"Sorry partial piece, not a reference that establishes this as a term in philosophy like epistemology, ethics etc. etc"

and also the Talk-page comment:

"The opening reference was not really up to the task. It's an article by someone that uses the word in its title. It's not a reliable third party sources which establishes the notability of the subject. The fact that there is a journal with that title might be enough but ideally we want something from a book or article which provides an overview of the subject as a whole."

The removed source begins:

"What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? These are metaphilosophical questions, metaphilosophy being the study of the nature of philosophy."

It proceeds to discuss the whole subject at very great length, as anyone who wishes to look at the article can see for themselves. The fact that an article about metaphilosophy uses the word metaphilosophy in its title doesn't astonish me.

In my opinion, this source is a very suitable one to answer to the "citation needed" request, and Snowded is allowing his prejudice against this entire subject (as indicated in his merge request of the above thread) to cloud his judgment in this matter. The IEP is a well-established peer-reviewed on-line journal. The source should be restored.

Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The internet encyclopedia is in effect a collection of essays. The reference would establish that one Philosopher uses this term (and believes it should be used more widely), it is not an article that looks at the use of the term overall and/or its controversies. It's a few short paragraphs ("great length" please) that talks about different schools of modern philosophy and just happens to use the term in its title and a couple of times in the text. The fact the term is not used in the published encyclopedias I have had a chance to check (more tomorrow when I get access to my library tomorrow) is a matter of concern. By the way if you continue to comment on the motivations of other editors rather than dealing with the content issue then you risk some sanction. As it happens I don't agree with your definition of philosophy, but that should not be the issue. What matters is sources. So can we please keep this to the content issue and would you please stop speculating on motives that you are ill placed to understand. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A google scholar search supports the idea that this is a term used in philosophy rather than a distinctive field. I think this strengths the case for it to be a paragraph in the main article at most. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some real points raised regarding the IEP article Contemporary Metaphilosophy. The IEP would be most unhappy to hear how low is your esteem of this journal. Your conception of this work clearly is different from the author's, as evidenced by his introductory paragraphs. Perhaps you have something to say about Double and Rescher as well?

"By a metaphilosophy I mean a view of what philosophy is, what philosophy can do, and, especially, what philosophy is for"

— Richard Double, Metaphilosophy and Free Will, p. 4

"Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects."

— Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics, an Essay on Metaphilosophy, p. 1

Brews ohare (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, there is little doubt that some philosophers see no need to separate metaphilosophy from philosophy, and feel that such a division accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, this opinion is clearly not universal. It seems to me that metaphysics as a separate matter from philosophy itself has the effect of focusing upon a particular facet of a very large subject, and focus can often keep a discussion on track. In any event, there is no denying this branch of philosophy is out there, and no-one is forced to accept its existence as some kind of iron curtain blocking them from discussing this subject because they aren't metaphilosophers.

If this dispute over the prevalence of explicitly announced practitioners of metaphilosophy can be put aside, the IEP article Contemporary Metaphilosophy does a perfectly fine job of saying what the subject is thought to be, and providing a history of some work in this area, some of which is not explicitly articulated as metaphilosophy, but clearly falls into this realm. The source should be restored. What say you? Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the journal of the Internet Encyclopedia per se provided we recognise what they are and what they say. I repeat my point, the article does not talk about metaphilosophy as a discipline or aspect of philosophy, it just uses it as a word to describe what the author sees as the main strands of thinking. As such the most it can support is that the author concerned used the word Its not enough. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That said, I think we could use the other sources you mention to say that Metaphilosophy is used by some philosophers to describe the philosphical practice of talking about philosophy. That might justify a paragraph in the main article ----Snowded ^TALK 15:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a lot time to properly comment on everything being discussed here, but two things I'd like to flag:

1) Given that philosophy is the object of study in metaphilosophy, I don't see how discussion about philosophy is in any way inappropriate to an article on this subject. In fact besides that, I don't see what else you would expect an article on this subject to discuss, except even more second-order issues about what metaphilosophy itself is and whether or not it exists.

On a related note 2) Snowded, you seem to assume (or assume that this article assumes) that metaphilosophy is not itself a part of philosophy, when that is itself an open question that is mentioned in the article and not settled.

In my view the purpose of this article is primarily as a place for extensive coverage of philosophical views on philosophy itself (like its definition, purpose, promise, etc) -- the subject matter of metaphilosophy -- and only secondarily for coverage of views of metaphilosophy (like whether it exists or whether it's a part of philosophy or apart from philosophy, etc). I've just made an effort to better separate those two things in the article.

Aside from this, I agree with basically everything Brews has said here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Here is part of what the IEP says about its scholarly standards:

"The submission and review process of articles is the same as that with printed philosophy journals, books and reference works. The authors are specialists in the areas in which they write, and are frequently leading authorities. Submissions are peer reviewed by specialists according to strict criteria."

It appears you take issue with these statements, and view the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy as the unsupported assertions of a single author Nicholas Joll. More substantively, you suggest that metaphilosophy is not a subject in its own right. I think you are correct in thinking metaphilosophy is not a distinct discipline but rather a subject area. In that regard the term metaphilosophy may be a bit of a misnomer, but it seems likely it will stick, inasmuch as several books already have been published with this word in their title.

You think that any citation appearing in the lead of the article Metaphilosophy must contain a critique of the field and carefully discuss various opinions about the appropriateness of the appellation metaphilosophy. I don't know of any general WP criteria in this regard, and many WP articles have sources in their leads that are simply examples of discussions of their topic.

With these remarks in mind, I see nothing to prevent that Contemporary Metaphilosophy be used as an introductory citation. Brews ohare (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Any discussion of issues in philosophy has to relate to metaphilosophy and be cited as such. General discussion of the field is original research or synthesis. Taking Aristotle or Kant unless you have a third party source which specifically references them in the context of metaphilosophy (explicitly referenced) is also original research. Brews I have told you several times that the Internet Enclypopedia and Metaphilosophy are reliable sources. You don't need to prove that, you need to show that the content supports the use of those references. Otherwise the lede summarises the article, or in short articles contains key information. The fact this is far from a universally accepted term has to be there. I have simplified it and removed the fact tag in consequence. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are about topics, not about terms. If a topic is discussed under the name of several different terms, having one article on that topic incorporating material not discussed under the term that article is named after is not original research. So provided that "metaphilosophy" is the best name for this topic (and if not, the article could be moved to another name and I wouldn't object), material discussing this topic is appropriate here whether or not it was discussed under the name "metaphilosophy" or not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well my view remains that this is not notable enough to warrant more than a paragraph in the main article. I may return to that as only three editors are involved at the moment so there is no clear agreement on direction. That aside it is clearly the case that you can't use this article to create an alternative set of material to that in Philosophy, it has to be particular to metaphilosophy otherwise it clearly breaks WP:COAT. You certainly cannot simply assume that the term is meaningful to discussing philosophy before the term had currency unless you have a third party source which does that. There was a whole load of orignal research and WP:synthesis in the material I removed - which increases my concern that the article is being used as a coatrack for a partial view of what is philosophy.----Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the definition stuff per WP:COAT however, what is needed there is something which describes what aspects of philosophy metahilosophers consider problematic - it their take on the subject - not Brews :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 09:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent revisions by Snowded arbitrary and unsupported by Talk page discussion

In a recent set of about sixteen large-scale revisions on March 11, this to this, Snowded has completely rewritten the article Metaphysics to suit Snowded's personal views about what this article should contain. These changes were not discussed on the Talk page, and are contrary to various views expressed there by other authors, and by sources that are no longer represented adequately. Snowded has repeatedly pursued the merging of this article with Philosophy and repeatedly suggested that metaphysicsmetaphilosophy is a subject with no standing (at least, among the philosophers that Snowded wishes to read).

In view of the controversial nature of these changes, and the resulting complete emasculation of the subject Metaphilosophy, even to the point of refusing to let stand the simple definition of ts subject area, these changes should be reverted and, if there is reason to re-implement them, then those changes should be supported by Talk page discussion, and not simply by fiat. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There is talk page discussion and I made sure there was an edit summary for each change. I've also conformed the material with what the sources say. I realise you are frustrated that not a single editor supported your proposed changes to Philosophy but you really need to calm down a bit and deal with content issues. If you want to raise an RfC do ----Snowded ^TALK 15:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense to merge the content into Philosophy? There isn't really such a thing as "metaphilosophy". The study of "metaphilosophy" (or philosophical method) is the study of philosophy in a way that the study of history is not the study of historiography. To study philosophy is to go meta instantly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My original proposal on the talk page was to do that for similar reasons ----Snowded ^TALK 16:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The only point of having this page might be to discuss the term (who uses it and why). But I'd be surprised to learn that there's a university course in a philosophy department anywhere that's called "metaphilosophy". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I deem it imprudent to dispute the pronouncements of an Administrator in such matters, especially when advanced with certainty, without supporting argument. Brews ohare (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? I'm allowed to say with certainty that I'd be surprised, given that I'm the only one with the privileged access. :) As for the rest, I think it's common knowledge, but one thing to do is to look for a course called "metaphilosophy" in a philosophy department. I can almost guarantee that you won't find one, unlike meta-ethics and metaphysics, but I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy and Philosophy

I was unaware of the discussion happening at Talk:Philosophy (funny, I thought I had that on my watchlist), and that Snowded came here because Brews found and mentioned this article in the process of arguing there. I would like to flag, in defense against COAT allegations against this article, that this article has been here in substantially identical form to how Snowded found it for much, much longer than Brews has been editing it, and is in fact based in large part on one of the first Wikipedia articles, Definition of philosophy, which coexisted with the original draft of Philosophy just fine. So it's not like this article was created as an "alternative" version of content already covered at Philosophy to try to avoid having to be neutral there or anything; it's about a completely different subject altogether, and always has been.

The article Philosophy mostly discusses the subject matter of philosophy, not philosophy as a subject matter: it's an overview of the kinds of problems discussed in philosophy and the kinds of answers proposed to those problems and the people and schools and movements who have put forth those answers and so on. It does not say a lot about what the bulk of this article was before Snowded gutted it: what is philosophy, how is it defined, what differentiates it from other practices, what are its aims, its methods, can it make progress and if so how and what does that look like, etc. If my memory serves me, there used to be some more content on that there, but when it began to expand the consensus was that that wasn't the subject of that article, and discussion of philosophy as an object of study itself didn't belong there, and was more appropriate for this article or definition of philosophy (which was subsequently merged here).

If that consensus has changed and the editors at Philosophy want to fill that article out with all the material that is or was here -- definitional and demarcation problems, aims, methods, and progress, etc -- I would be amenable to that. My only objection is to attempts to remove all such content from Wikipedia entirely. Whether under the name "metaphilosophy" or not, there is substantial writing on such topics, and we have a number of articles on some of them already (Philosophical progress, Philosophical method, etc).

Basically, I would not have any objection to moving content from here to Philosophy -- though I suspect that other editors there would object, because I recall that they did before and pushed it over here instead. What I object to is the wholesale deletion of material that is not covered elsewhere, contrary to Snowded's repeated assertions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Snowded's edits ought to be restored. The article as it stands reads like a personal essay and is basically original research. In the longer term, this page either has to be about the term, or the title should be directed to Philosophy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you think the topic (regardless of the term) discussed here doesn't deserve coverage on Wikipedia, that all the material here should simply be deleted and not improved and possibly moved? That wikipedia should not discuss philosophy as an object of study at all? That is the point I am discussing in this talk section, but your position on that question is not clear from your response. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For extra clarity, here are the several editorial questions I'm trying to keep separate, and my thoughts on them:

1. Should Wikipedia have coverage of material regarding philosophy itself as an object of study, such as its definition, demarcation, aims, methods, and progress? I answer an emphatic yes.
2. If so, should that material be covered at Philosophy, or in a separate article? I could go either way but I believe a separate article with a summary section at Philosophy would be best.
3. If a separate article, what should it be named? Besides "Metaphilosophy", the only candidate name that comes to mind is "Philosophy of philosophy", which I would be amenable to, and I am open to other suggestions.
4. Once we know whether we're covering such material and if so where it is to be covered, then we can address particular issues with the quality of our coverage.

My concern is that objections to the quality of the coverage we have and the article name "Metaphilosophy" are leading to actions that effectively remove coverage of this topic from Wikipedia entirely, and that is what I am concerned with preventing. Provided that we are covering it somewhere, I am very amenable to attempts to improve coverage. But merely deleting everything is not acceptable. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I object to the 'deleting everything' and 'gutting' pejoratives. I suggested a merge and getting no support removed material that duplicated the main article, read like original research and in general attempted to make the article relevant to the subject. I've done more of that just now rather than just blind reverting. I have yet to see any evidence that this is a notable subject and think we would be better crafting a couple of paragraphs on the second order issue for the main article which includes the term. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your stated objectives have not been realized, and your choices for their implementation run counter to suggestions on this Talk page. Your view that 'metaphilosophy' is a "second order issue" is strange. First, it is not an "issue" but a scholarly subdivision of philosophy. In addition, this topic is not one of 'second order' as can be gleaned from various sources referred to in Contemporary Metaphilosophy and also Double, Rescher, Williamson, Horwich, Frascolla, Marconi & Voltolini, Gill, Banerjee, Overgaard, Gilbert & Burwood, Nielsen, Elias, Blank ... Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a scholarly subdivision; some of those writers are simply signalling that they're discussing philosophical method. Double, for example, explains clearly why he uses that word; Williamson rejects the term because it's just another word for philosophy. So okay, write an article about who uses the term and why. That would teach us something. But the current article is a personal essay about philosophy, so there is a mismatch between the title and the contents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin: I'd like to engage further on the subject of Metaphilosophy. As you may realize, Contemporary Metaphilosophy defines the subject as one of discussing the questions: What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? Williamson (excuse my temerity in interpreting him differently) does not reject the term 'metaphilosophy' because it is "just another word for philosophy" (that is, coextensive with philosophy) but because he does not want to suggest the topics What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? are to be handled with methods different from those used in the rest of philosophy. The article Metaphilosophy is not (in my own opinion of course) about the usage of the term 'metaphilosophy', but about the two questions What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done?. That is also (I would contend) the reasoning behind the many books I have listed above and is why the word 'metaphilosophy' occurs in their titles: the authors wish to stress that they are talking 'about' philosophy itself.

As for the content of the article at the moment, I take no responsibility at all, and divorce myself from it in its entirety. If it appears to you to be a personal essay of some description that is not my doing. My role here was simply to reformat some quotations already present that were subsequently removed by Snowded, along with a sensible definition of the subject, also removed by Snowded, and a citation to Contemporary Metaphilosophy, again, also removed by Snowded . I also put some already existing citations in template form with some associated fields filled in. Brews ohare (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case I suggest we revert to Snowded's version and build it up from there, focusing closely on sources who discuss the term and/or philosophical method, so that readers can learn something here that they won't learn at Philosophy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin: We don't have to revert to Snowded's version: the present article is Snowded's version, and he has indicated a firm desire to delete this article in its entirety and summarize in a paragraph or two of the article Philosophy, if he he can manage to do that. Pfhorrest has outlined above that that approach already was tried unsuccessfully before. I don't know how involved you wish to become in a revision of the article, but without your support changing it will prove very difficult. Brews ohare (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I have suggested a merge and still think that idea has value. However I have also worked with the article to try and get it to an acceptable change. So please stop making silly accusations. The key point I have been trying to make to you is the one made by Slim Virgin above namely that we need to focus on "sources who discuss the term and/or philosophical method", not carry out original research based on google scholar searches. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Sigh right back at you. We could begin by defining the subject as the discussion of What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? instead of the present beginning:

"Metaphilosophy is one approach to the process of philosophising about philosophy."

Metaphilosophy is not one approach; it is very simply the subject of "philosophising about philosophy". How about making that change? Brews ohare (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded that doing Google searches is not the way to proceed. What I suggest is that we compile a list here on talk of the major philosophy encyclopaedias that have an entry for it, and note those that don't. That will give us a better overview. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

One approach may not be best, but neither can you say that metaphilosophy is the process of philosophising about philosophy, it is for some authors not for others. I agree with Slim Virgin, lets see what the current entries are. I've started a list below----Snowded ^TALK 20:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Third party references

Metaphilosophy

• Oxford Dictionary of Philsophy 1st edition 1996 - no mention

• The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (ed. Robert Audi) – has an entry under "metaphilosophy" that's detailed enough to be used as a source

• Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition (ed. Blackburn, 2005), p. 232: "metaphilosophy Writing or thinking whose subject is philosophy itself"

• Oxford Companion to Philosophy, new edition (ed. Honderich, 2005), p. 589: "metaphilosophy. The philosophy of philosophy. Philosophy is the attempt to solve philosophical problems. ‘What is philosophy?’ is itself a philosophical problem, so metaphilosophy is essentially the attempt to solve that problem."

• Bunnin and Yu, The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (Blackwell, 2004), p. 426: "metaphilosophy Philosophical method A term introduced by Lazerowitz for the philosophical discussion of philosophy itself, including, for example, its nature, method, goals, autonomy, and objectivity. Hence it is second-order philosophy."

• Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Edward Craig): no entry; referred to twice in other entries, once in quotation marks, to describe someone having a "metaphilosophy" of something.

Definitions of 'metaphilosophy'

• Nicholas Joll "What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? These are metaphilosophical questions, metaphilosophy being the study of the nature of philosophy." Contemporary Metaphilosophy

• Timothy Williamson: "The primary task of the philosophy of philosophy is to understand philosophy...The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy..."

• Richard Double: "By a metaphilosophy I mean a view of what philosophy is, what philosophy can do, and, especially what philosophy is for." Metaphilosophy and Free Will p. 4

• Nicholas Rescher: "Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophy. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects." Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy Chapter 1, p. 1

• Nicholas Rescher: "While philosophers from Plato to Kant have discussed the mission and methodology of philosophy, this area of deliberation has only recently been acknowledged as a distinctive branch of philosophy as such, duly entitled metaphilosophy" Studies in metaphilosophy, Preface

• Søren Overgaard, Paul Gilbert, Stephen Burwood: "However, to attempt to answer this question - to reflect on the methods of philosophizing - is to do metaphilosophy. An Introduction to Metaphilosophy, p. 8

• Charles L. Griswold Jr.: "The term metaphilosophy is a recent invention. It seems to have been coined by, not surprisingly, a follower of the later Wittgenstein, in order to refer to the "investigation of the nature of philosophy, ..." Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings p. 144

I hope these definitions might prove helpful in providing a more suitable introductory sentence for metaphilosophy inasmuch as Snowded has removed an earlier proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Snowded's objections to treating 'metaphilosophy' as another term for the 'philosophy of philosophy' stems from his awareness of the objection by Williamson that the term 'metaphilosophy' seems to carry the connotation of some higher form of discipline that can comment from some more abstract platform upon the conduct of philosophy. Some authors may see things that way, but it does not appear to be the common view of the term 'metaphilosophy'. There are two ways to handle this matter: (i) Rename the article 'philosophy of philosophy' with a redirect from 'metaphilosophy' or (ii) provide a brief discussion of various meanings of 'metaphilosophy' in a subsequent paragraph, pointing out that it is part of philosophy, not some new breed of cat. To hold the entire article hostage to this piddling difference of views is silly. Brews ohare (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've created a draft page of some introductory material for such an article here. Please feel free to do with it what you wish. Brews ohare (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Draft page: Philosophy of philosophy

Philosophy of philosophy is the subject of philosophizing about philosophy. That is, it discusses questions such as: "What is philosophy?", "How should philosophy be done?", and "What is philosophy for?" This subject runs into some initial difficulties concerning its depth and degree of abstraction:

"When we ask, "What is philosophy?" then we are speaking about philosophy. By asking in this way we are obviously taking a stand above and, therefore, outside of philosophy. But the aim of our question is to enter into philosophy, to tarry in it, to conduct ourselves in its manner, that is, to "philosophize". The path of our discussion must, therefore, not only have a clear direction, but this direction must at the same time give us the guarantee that we are moving within philosophy and not outside of it and around it."

— Martin Heidegger, Was Ist Das--die Philosophie? p. 21

An alternative term is metaphilosophy, although this designation is not universally adopted, and does have other interpretations.

Rationale

The philosophy of philosophy attempts to segregate some general pronouncements about philosophy, putting them into a separate part of philosophy. Historically, philosophy has a long tradition of discussing its own traditions, its opponents and its history, without this distinction. Some cautions in undertaking the study of philosophy as a branch of philosophy were pointed out above in the comments of Heidegger. The same points were raised by Wittgenstein:

"One might think: if philosophy speaks of the use of the word "philosophy" there must be a second-order philosophy. But it is not so: it is, rather, like the case of orthography, which deals with the word "orthography" among others without then being second-order."

— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph 121

Some philosophers employ the term metaphilosophy to refer to the philosophy of philosophy, adopting the traditional use of the prefix "meta" to mean about.... Others find this term too easily can be taken to imply the 'second-order' philosophy denied by Wittgenstein.

For example, Williamson prefers the term 'philosophy of philosophy' so as to emphasize that what is discussed in 'metaphilosophy' is still philosophy:

"I also rejected the word “metaphilosophy.” The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is, whereas metaphilosophy sounds as though it might try to look down on philosophy from above, or beyond."

— Timothy Williamson, The philosophy of philosophy, Preface, p.ix

Nonetheless, other philosophers such as Nicholas Rescher or Richard Double have adopted the term. Presenting research on general philosophical principles, Rescher's book begins with his view on metaphilosophy:

"Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects."

— Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics, an Essay on Metaphilosophy, p. 1

As pointed out by Griswold, the term 'metaphilosophy' is of recent origin:

"The term metaphilosophy is a recent invention. It seems to have been coined by, not surprisingly, a follower of the later Wittgenstein, in order to refer to the "investigation of the nature of philosophy, ..."

— Charles L. Griswold Jr., Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings, p. 144

References

Above is simply a proposal for a beginning to a page 'philosophy of philosophy' to initiate consideration of moving metaphilosophy to a less contentious title. Brews ohare (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wholly support this move just to get it clear to everyone involved that this article is supposed to be about the subject matter and not the apparently contentious term sometimes used to name it.

I would still support a redirect from Metaphilosophy to Philosophy of philosophy in case of such a move, and include in the first sentence a parenthetical alternate subject name "(sometimes called metaphilosophy)". --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and interesting to note: apparently Philosophy of philosophy is already a redirect to here, so I think such a move should be wholly uncontroversial. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, reading discussion about reverting to one version or another above: I propose that if we do move the article to a less contentious name, we revert to the version before Snowded's edits, as they were made under the false presumption that this was an article about a term rather than the subject named by that term. After the move, after we have settled on where we are going to cover this material, then lets look at the quality of the material, once the subject under discussion is square. Since most of Snowded's edits have been deletions, they shouldn't be hard to redo if they can be justified with a proper understanding of what the article is about. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

We're not supposed to have one-sentence leads, so I'd like to restore my edit unless there are strong objections. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with Snowded, he's the one who deleted everything that used to be in the lede here. As this article is not about the term "Metaphilosophy" but about the subject matter named by that term, a few paragraphs about terminology are not an appropriate lede for this article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not so, if you check this version which was my attempt to get the article on track had one paragraph. I've restored SlimVigin's lede without 'term' by way of a compromise. However one of the third party sources says it is "a term introduced by" so I am not sure I was right to get rid of it ----Snowded ^TALK 04:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My objection is not to the use of the word "term", but to the focusing on the term rather than the subject that term names. Adding quotation marks around the word "Metaphilosophy" in the first sentence fixes the grammatical problem of appearing to use a word when actually just mentioning it, but it doesn't fix the problem of making the article out to be about the term "metaphilosophy" rather than about the subject of metaphilosophy; it just makes it more clear that that is happening. --Pfhorrest (talk)

Term vs subject: the use-mention distinction

It seems that the distinction I was trying to call attention to earlier has been largely ignored.

Is the objection simply to naming this article "Metaphilosophy"? If so, propose the article be renamed to a more neutral title.

As it was before Snowded came along, this article was predominantly about the subject which is (contentiously) referred to as "metaphilosophy", not about the use of the term metaphilosophy to refer to that subject. It is now being turned into an article about the term, and the material on the actual subject named thus is being largely destroyed. I contend that that is WP:COAT, not what Snowded accused before.

The article titled "Philosophy" does not discuss the subject which this article was about. That article discusses things like epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics -- the subject matter which is termed "philosophy". It barely discusses philosophy as an object itself. This article did. That's what this article was about. Not the term. Arguments about the term are now overtaking the article about the thing thus termed, and that is destroying the article.

Please, keep these things separate. I'll list them again:

1. Should we have material discussing philosophy as an object itself, e.g. its definition, demarcation, aims, methods, progress, etc?
2. Should that material go in a section of the article Philosophy, or in its own article?
3. Should that section or article be titled "Metaphilosophy", or something else?
4. How does that material need improvement?

Please stop trying to turn this article into one on the term "Metaphilosophy", when it was never any such thing to begin with, and ignoring the subject which the term "Metaphilosophy" names. Argue about the quality of our material on that subject. Argue about the appropriate name of the subject. Argue that this should be a section at Philosophy instead (but I expect resistance from editors there). But don't just delete all coverage of the subject under false claims that it's already covered elsewhere or is off-topic for the article. If you want this article deleted (and replaced with one about the term "Metaphilosophy"), at least be open about it and admit "no" to question #1 above. Otherwise, you should be talking about moving the article, or creating a new section at Philosophy, rather than what is happening here.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My overall issue will be if we try and replicate the definition of, or the history of Philosophy. That would be a coatrack. Lets see where we get keeping it to its subject and then make the call as to if it is a para in the main article or stays as an article. I can see value in a new article that lists definitions of Philosophy over time. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think anything about the definition of philosophy is being replicated. The editors at the article Philosophy roundly rejected any discussion of definitional issues in the article, dubbing them "metaphilosophical" and pushing for them to be covered here. The article definition of philosophy, which once covered the subject in a much earlier version of Wikipedia but was slowly orphaned and then merged here, covered that in detail, but most of that material has now been deleted by you. Where else on Wikipedia are definitional issues about philosophy covered?

I agree that this article shouldn't go into much detail about the history of philosophy, but historical organization of proposed answers to metaphilosophical questions surely can't be ruled out. If people at different times have said that philosophy was different things, that it was or wasn't continuous with or distinct from different fields, that it aimed for different things, employed different methods, etc... then listing those different conceptions of philosophy and its various aspects by era can't be inappropriate for an article on such issues.

I don't understand your sentence "Lets see where we get keeping it to its subject". I'm not convinced that you understand what the article's subject is, as you still seem to think it's about the term "metaphilosophy", rather than about the subject of metaphilosophy, whether under that or any other name. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was self evident, lets see where we go with making this article meaningful and not a coat rack, If we get there I will withdraw by merge suggestion. The definition of philosophy becomes to Philosophy not this article and it is not longer (my earlier edits) replicated here so I am happy on that score for the moment. The historical organisation of metaphilosophy is of course legitimate.

You are the one making this article into a coat rack, making the entire article about the use of the word "metaphilosophy" and not about metaphilosophy. The definition of philosophy may or may not belong to the article Philosophy, but as I have already repeatedly pointed out it is not presently covered there (and editors there have previously rejected coverage of it there); so it was never replicated here, and after your edits is now largely absent from Wikipedia entirely. The whole point of this discussion is an objection to your edits, so that you are happy about it does not mean anything; people are still objecting to what you want, and the fact that you're getting what you want at the moment doesn't settle that dispute at all. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

try and focus on content issues please. The actual definition on Philosophy was extensively debated so I am not sure what you are asserting there. If you want an extended set of definitions then a list, named as such, is more appropriate. Also we deal with NOW not some difficult time y ou had several years ago. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am focusing on articulating the subject of this article because you have been deleting content under claims that it is not appropriate to the subject of this article, while apparently misunderstanding that that is. I want to make sure we all understand what the article is supposed to be before we go making sweeping changes to "improve" it, as without understanding what we're aiming for such "improvements" may well be destructive, as I believe many of your edits have been.

Exactly what words to put in the lede of the article Philosophy was extensively debated, yes, but in that debate it came up that there the exact definition of philosophy is itself philosophically problematized, but that coverage of that problem (how exactly to define philosophy) was not appropriate for that article; it should simply make a noncontroversial minimal statement and avoid raising the issue of a more precise definition. You yourself were a part of that debate so I'm not sure how you don't remember this, unless you simply do not want coverage of the problematization of defining philosophy to be covered on Wikipedia at all, which looks like a plausible case to me. But we had, in some material you deleted here, at least one reliably sourced attestation that philosophy is "notoriously difficult to define", or something to that effect, so I don't see how you could justify objecting to that.

As to lists, at one point we had something like a simple list of quotations from a bunch of dictionaries here, but that was deemed bad writing to have a page full of a bunch of quotes. So it was rewritten into something more prosaic, referencing each of the quotes (I thought the quotes were still there in the references but as of recent versions before you came along it looks like they weren't; that should be fixed) to support a string of predicates applied to philosophy by those sources, attributed to those sources; something like "Philosophy is commonly said to be 'adjective1'[1], 'adjective2'[2], of a 'adjective3 nature'[3], or generally 'adjective4'[4]." That's purely a stylistic decision and shouldn't make the content any more objectionable than a list of "According to Source1, 'philosophy is adjective1'[1]. According to Source2, 'Adjective2ness is a defining characteristic of philosophy'.[2] According to Source3...".

And I bring up the old discussion at Talk:Philosophy only in response to the proposed merger there, when such a merger is interpreted as moving the content here to there, rather than deleting this content and redirecting there. I would not personally object strongly to moving content from here to there, but if that is the proposal then it should be raised there as well, and I strongly suspect there will be resistance from that end, and pragmatically do not think it is a wise proposal. I myself only object to outright deleting coverage of these issues from anywhere; what exists at Philosophy already is not coverage of this subject, so deleting the contents of this article and redirecting there will result in reduced coverage of encyclopedic material. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Quotations

I don't know how helpful or not this will be, but I thought I'd draw attention to the fact that User:Philogo once populated this page with a huge number of quotes from primary sources which he thought were relevant to the subject, which were subsequently archived at Talk:Metaphilosophy/quotations. Again, not sure what relevance that may be, but in case it is... --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding a proposed merger to Philosophy

Also for reference in the above discussions, Talk:Philosophy/Archive_24 through Talk:Philosophy/Archive_28 contain discussions by editors at Talk:Philosophy about bringing metaphilosophical issues (e.g. regarding the definition of philosophy) to that article, and the push to move discussion of such issues here instead. I believe this should discourage attempts to merge this article into Philosophy, but should not necessarily discourage a renaming of this article to another title if "Metaphilosophy" is an objectionable title for this subject. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy is the philosophy of philosophy, the higher-order study of the nature of philosophy

The above is presented as the definition of metaphilosophy. It is not. It is one possible definition, but there are others with different meanings, and this one is not the most common one. The cited article in the journal Metaphilosophy is not available without subscription, so it is difficult to say whether this remark is taken out of context. However the citation Contemporary Metaphilosophy] says in its two introductory sentences (emphasis added):

"What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? These are metaphilosophical questions, metaphilosophy being the study of the nature of philosophy."

A summary of other possibilities is provided in Contemporary Metaphilosophy:

"Lazerowitz proposed (1970) that metaphilosophy is ‘the investigation of the nature of philosophy.’ If we take ‘nature’ to include both the point of philosophy and how one does (or should do) philosophy, then that definition fits with the most general meta­philosophical questions just identified above. Still: there are other definitions of metaphilosophy; and while Lazerowitz’s definition will prove best for our purposes, one needs – in order to appreciate that fact, and in order to give the definition a suitable (further) gloss – to survey the alternatives."

"One alternative definition construes metaphilosophy as the philosophy of philosophy. Sometimes that definition intends this idea: metaphilosophy applies the method(s) of philosophy to philosophy itself. That idea itself comes in two versions. One is a ‘first-order’ construal. The thought here is this. Metaphilosophy, as the application of philosophy to philosophy itself, is simply one more instance of philosophy (Wittgenstein 2001: section 121; Williamson 2007: ix). The other version – the ‘second-order’ version of the idea that metaphilosophy applies philosophy to itself – is as follows. Metaphilosophy stands to philosophy as philosophy stands to its subject matter or to other disciplines (Rescher 2006), such that, as Williamson puts it (loc. cit) metaphilosophy ‘look[s] down upon philosophy from above, or beyond.’ (Williamson himself, who takes the first-order view, prefers the term ‘the philosophy of philosophy’ to ‘metaphilosophy’. For he thinks that ‘metaphilosophy’ has this connotation of looking down.) A different definition of metaphilosophy exploits the fact that ‘meta’ can mean not only about but also after. On this definition, metaphilosophy is post-philosophy. Sometimes Lazerowitz himself used ‘metaphilosophy’ in that way. What he had in mind here, more particularly, is the ‘special kind of investigation which Wittgenstein had described as one of the “heirs” of philosophy’ (Lazerowitz 1970). Some French philosophers have used the term similarly, though with reference to Heidegger and/or Marx rather than to Wittgenstein (Elden 2004: 83)."

The chosen definition is not the most commonly used, and it contradicts the definitions presented in published books with open access found here on this Talk page. Moreover, it contradicts the position of Heidegger:

"When we ask, "What is philosophy?" then we are speaking about philosophy. By asking in this way we are obviously taking a stand above and, therefore, outside of philosophy. But the aim of our question is to enter into philosophy, to tarry in it, to conduct ourselves in its manner, that is, to "philosophize". The path of our discussion must, therefore, not only have a clear direction, but this direction must at the same time give us the guarantee that we are moving within philosophy and not outside of it and around it."

—Martin Heidegger , Was Ist Das--die Philosophie? p. 21

and Williamson:

"I also rejected the word “metaphilosophy.” The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is, whereas metaphilosophy sounds as though it might try to look down on philosophy from above, or beyond."

—Timothy Williamson , The philosophy of philosophy, Preface, p.ix

and of Wittgenstein. Brews ohare (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Page moved to "Philosophy of philosophy"

Apparently I do have the privileges to move this article even though a redirect back here already existed at the new name. I have been bold and done so.

This is intended to broaden, not narrow, the scope of this article; to deflect the unnecessary conflict about the term "metaphilosophy" and focus on the philosophy of philosophy, whether it be called "metaphilosophy" or not. This is not intended to take any position on whether or not "metaphilosophy" is an appropriate name for the subject, or on whether the subject is a first-order form of philosophy simpliciter, or some kind of second-order activity beyond or above ordinary philosophy. The article should not take a position on any of those issues, though it should discuss them and give a neutral treatment of the different positions on them. But the bulk of this article should discuss the matters covered by philosophy of philosophy, whether under the name of "metaphilosophy" or not, and whether considering such matters as approaching philosophy from within or without. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bing bold is one thing, doing something like this without agreeing it when there is controversy seems rash to me. Personally with that name I am more inclined to push for a merge----Snowded ^TALK 13:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The intention of the move was to sidestep the controversy over the term "metaphilosophy" and allow focus on the subject which this article is about, rather than a controversial term sometimes applied to that subject.

On which note, you've been editing Wikipedia and philosophy articles long enough that you've probably already seen these, but for reference I'd like to point you to Use-mention distinction and WP:DICTIONARY, in particlar:

The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated for the word cheese:

Use: Cheese is derived from milk.

Mention: "Cheese" is derived from the Old English word "cyse".

The first sentence is a statement about the substance called cheese; it uses the word "cheese" to refer to that substance.

The second is a statement about the word cheese as a signifier; it mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself."'

(from Use-mention distinction)

[Wikipedia] Articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.

[Dictionary entries are about:] the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

(from WP:DICTIONARY)

Note that cheese and octopuses do not refer to anything, and they were not first used by any authors ever (except perhaps for eating, etc), or any of the other kinds of thing you've tried to predicate of metaphilosophy. Such things could be predicated of "metaphilosophy", but that would not be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article as they are not supposed to be about words.

This article is about the philosophical examination of issues regarding philosophy itself. Focusing on the controversy surrounding the word "metaphilosophy" to name that subject was detracting from improving coverage of that topic, so I moved the article to a less controversial name to stop that and focus on the actual subject of the article, rather than one name for that subject. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Moser sentence

1. SlimVirgin added the material that presently makes up most of the lede, including the sentence about Paul Moser.
2. That sentence was part of a longer piece about Moser's views, but Snowded trimmed it down to the present single sentence.
3. That sentence by itself does not fit in with the rest of the paragraph, which is about the controversy of whether metaphilosophy / philosophy of philosophy is first- or second-order, so I had left it dangling after that paragraph.
4. BrewsOhare didn't like it dangling and tried to stick it into that paragraph.
5. That made it a non-sequitur as it is not about what the rest of that paragraph is about (it is giving an example of a metaphilosophical problem, not discussing whether metaphilosophy is first- or second-order), so I moved it closer to SlimVirgin's original location, before the "controvery" paragraph, adding only the words "for example" to segue to it from the preceding sentence. In my edit summary I called for further expansion of that first paragraph, e.g. more examples of what metaphilosophy / philosophy of philosophy is about.
6. Snowded just reverted that with an edit summary implying that I was expanding something beyond the material we have, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was a mere rearrangement of material that was already there, and a two-word segue to connect the train of thought.
7. I've reverted that now because that edit shows a complete misunderstanding of what was even reverted.

Snowded, please pay closer attention to what you are doing, both with this in particular and your editing pattern at this article in general. I get the overall impression that this is a fight you were having with Brews (I've recently had one of them myself so I sympathize) at Talk:Philosophy spilling over to here with an eye to "win" rather than a calm approach to understanding the material and improving our coverage of it. Please, slow down, read, listen, and think. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop dellivering little homilies. For someone who moved a whole article when active discussion was going on, its a bit of cheek asking anyone else to slow down. I moved a section into the main body where it fits better. If the article is to survive then the body needs to be right, then the lede should summarise it. I think that is the sequence that swe should follow. You might want to read up on WP:OWN ----Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You made further edits while I was writing this and after those (with some tweaks) I withdraw my objection here, it was not clear what you were doing. --07:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood and those last two edits you made improved that section ----Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaphilosophical problems

This section is very scattered and partial in nature. I suggest we combine into a paragraph and have the main articles in the "linked" list at the bottom? ----Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That section is scattered and partial because you deleted most of it, over objections. What used to be in that section used to be the bulk of this article, and it needs to be expanded again. Metaphilosophical problems are what this article is primarily about, despite your attempts to make it otherwise. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have gone back into the last stable version of the article and restored anything that was relevant and referenced, tagged weak references for verification, and tagged a lot of things for expansion and cleanup. I will try to follow up on this myself soon, but will be away for the weekend after tomorrow night, so please don't think I'm neglecting that while I'm gone. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll review but to be clear I deleted stuff which was general philosophy not metaphilosophy. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It was talking about philosophy as a topic, as in the academic field and intellectual activity, which is the subject matter of metaphilosophy. If it was talking about the things philosophy studies, like ontological or ethical problems, then it would be general philosophy and not suited for this article.

The material you deleted today included sourced quotes about how the definition of philosophy is itself philosophically problematic, justifying including definitional material here, and a brief overview of definitions from a wide variety of sources and their common themes to serve as a preface to discussions of where the definition becomes controversial. It said, in effect, "The definition of philosophy is philosophically problematic as evidenced [here]. There is widespread agreement in [many sources] on some general things like [these]. However...".

Also, you claimed in your edit summary that the deleted material was duplication of something. I presume you are referring to the article Philosophy. I have rebutted that claim many times here on talk and not received a response to it: editors there specifically rejected any extended discussion of definitional issues, and the article has only a minimally uncontroversial definition as it stands now. Where is this definitional material supposedly duplicated?

I intent to restore much of that later tonight (only have time for a comment right now), and as we've gone back and forth deleting and restoring it a few times now, I ask that per WP:BRD we leave it in place as it was in the last stable version (plus or minus less controversial minor changes we've all made since; I'm not calling for a full revert) while we discuss here whether or not it's appropriate for this article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What is is or is not the stable version is open to question. I suggest you try to avoid restoring anything that is already adequately covered on the Philosophy Page and confine your edits to material that relates to the subject of this article namely is Philosophy of phisolosohy second order or not. A quote which says defining philosophy is problematic (to take one example) really adds nothing. Slim Virgin you might remember wanted to move back to a version where I had removed most of that material and only add back that which directly related to the subject. As I have said before an article which lists multiple definitions might be useful. Selecting just some for this page has issues of weight ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the question about the stable version could be: the article sat largely unchanged for months and months until very recently you came along and now it has undergone many drastic changes very quickly, including the repeated deletion and restoration of certain material. The stable version is the version that stayed largely unchanged for a long while, before the recent deletion and restoration back-and-forth. You were bold and deleted material, I've partially reverted that (and attempted to improve it), now let's discuss.

In particular, let's discuss what is covered at the Philosophy article or not, and what related to the subject of this article. Consider the article Philosophy. That article gives a (minimal) definition of the scope of the field, and then proceeds to discuss the things studied within that field, such as ontology, epistemology, and ethics. Likewise, the article Biology talks about biology as a field of study, and then goes into some detail on the things studied in that field, such as genetics and evolution. As I have argued repeatedly here, without any counterargument from you, this article should follow suite and discuss not only the philosophy of philosophy as a field (and the controversies surrounding it), but should predominantly discuss the things studied within that field, namely questions about the methods, aims, and definition (or demarcation or boundaries or limits or whatever we want to call it), , etc, of philosophy. That kind of material is not currently covered in depth at the article Philosophy, and so coverage of it here cannot be redundant with anything there.

Please actually make a counterargument to this instead of ignoring it and proceeding to edit on the assumption that it is incorrect. We are in the D phase of BRD; please discuss. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a counter argument, you don't agree with it. I've edited what you did with a view to a compromise - that has been your model so please don't lecture me on "D" when you moved the whole page without any "D" at all ----Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please point me to that counterargument. I have seen you making assertions, and argued against them, only to see those same assertions made again without argument. It's clear we disagree about our positions; but I've stated the reasons I think my position is right, and I would like to hear reasons why you think your positions is, rather than just hearing what your positions is again.

I'm pleased that we are making progress and compromise in the article, but discussion here has been extremely frustrating, because it feels like our dialogue consists of you asserting, "P", me rebutting "But what about Q? Q, therefore not P", and you replying "P" again, without addressing Q or introducing any other support for P. An argument is not just contradiction. (Funny Monty Python clip there to lighten the mood a bit). --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Joll on the meaning of 'metaphilosophy'

In the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, Nichols Joll has a section called "Defining Metaphilosophy. In this discussion he explains why the 'philosophy of philosophy' approach interpreted as one that "applies the method(s) of philosophy to philosophy itself" is inadequate to cover the field. He then goes on to discuss the view "whereby metaphilosophy is investigation of the nature (and point) of philosophy". He says that this definition, while broader than the first, may be too broad: "there is a sense in which it is too broad. For ‘investigation of the nature of philosophy’ suggests that any inquiry into philosophy will count as meta­philosophical, whereas an inquiry tends to be deemed meta­philosophical only when it pertains to the essence, or very nature, of philosophy."

All in all, Joll provides a very complete and extensive view of the range of ideas that comprise metaphilosophy.

The summary statement " Joll suggests that "‘meta’ can mean not only about but also after" in which case metaphilosophy is post-philosophy" is defective in several ways: it does not express the breadth of Joll' considerations, and it introduces the technical term "post-philosophy" for which no basis has been laid.

The one-line editorial comment "that is the unique in Joll,otherwise he describes all positions he does not assert one" is cryptic to me. A reading of Joll certainly indicates that he endorses a broad view of the term "metaphilosophy", one that includes but extends beyond Heidegger's and includes also Moser's. Brews ohare (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Joll is describing the field - its an encyclopaedia entry after all. As such he describes both uses, he does not create a third one. His use of post-philosophy on the other hand it notable and should be included Joll is no more notable that other entries such as the Oxford Companion which also covers all options. I know you like Joll, but he is just one of several such entries so no reason to pick him out, other than for a unique. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Joll describes the field. Why does that discredit the view he states that the field is wider than Heideger or Moser and includes both? Obviously it does. Obviously Joll doesn't just state A says a and B says b. He provides a reasoned exposition that argues why the breadth of the field goes beyond a and b to a + b in a very particular way that excludes (for example) sociological comments. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't create a third option, in fact (and to his credit) he does a good job of avoiding making judgements. The other encyclopaedia entries say similar things. On the other hand the ida of post-philosophy is interesting. I thought that would allow to inclusion of a source which is obviously important to you, but which is not definitive. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You say that Joll does not propose a usage of 'metaphilosophy' in the sense of an extended combination of the views conveniently designated by myself as those of Heidegger and Moser, and that, in fact, he makes no judgment in this matter.

How can you read Joll this way? He begins his discussion of definition with Morris Lazerowitz, goes into how that definition encompasses both the view that "metaphilosophy applies the method(s) of philosophy to philosophy itself" and also "accommodates... a more widely construed metaphilosophy", but on the other hand "does require qualification, since there is a sense in which it is too broad".

Aren't these remarks both "judgments" and also descriptions of a stance by Joll as to what the usage of 'metaphilosophy' is, in his judgment? To answer my own question: of course it does. Joll describes in detail what the term 'metaphilosophy' means to himself and how his view relates to the views of other authors.

The 'post-philosophy' discussed by Joll in the section Post-analytic philosophy may have interest as another topic under the listing Metaphilosophy#Topics, but it seems to have no pertinence to the usage of the term 'metaphilosophy' under discussion here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted a more complete description of Joll's summary that I hope will straighten all this out to both our satisfactions. Brews ohare (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymological paragraph

This paragraph has been deleted and restored several times, and is presently deleted:

The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom." However, few sources give "love of wisdom" as a possible meaning of the term, and others say the etymology is "not much help" in resolving such definitional issues.

I admit that I was having trouble organizing this paragraph logically into the Limits section, so I'm not just going to restore it, but it seems notable information that there are sources commenting on the usefulness or uselessness of etymology in defining the subject. Just giving the etymology is pointless without that, and us claiming that it is useless ourselves, obvious though that may seem to some, would be equally pointless. But if some sources actually do give the etymology as a definition, and others decry its uselessness, that seems at least worth a mention, and this paragraph claims to have sourced assertions of both those things, so pending verification of that sourcing I think it deserves a place in the Limits section. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I could't see anywhere that it logically fitted and it did not seem greatly relevant to this article ----Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Post-philosophy

As pointed out earlier on this talk page, the term post-philosophy as used by Joll has not been explained in Metaphilosophy so a sentence using this word is not clear. Joll uses the term Post-Analytic Philosophy to refer to some current opinions due to Richard Rorty; Hilary Putnam; Robert Brandom; John McDowell and Stanley Cavell. If this is the topic to be designated by post-philosophy, it clearly needs a separate section as done by Joll in his article.

On the other hand, Joll also refers to post-philosophy as follows. In the section Defining metaphilosophy he says:

"A different definition of metaphilosophy exploits the fact that ‘meta’ can mean not only about but also after. On this definition, metaphilosophy is post-philosophy. Sometimes Lazerowitz himself used ‘metaphilosophy’ in that way. What he had in mind here, more particularly, is the ‘special kind of investigation which Wittgenstein had described as one of the “heirs” of philosophy’ (Lazerowitz 1970). Some French philosophers have used the term similarly, though with reference to Heidegger and/or Marx rather than to Wittgenstein (Elden 2004: 83)."

This remark is followed later by the remark:

"The equation of metaphilosophy and post-philosophy is narrow and tendentious"

in which I take "the equation of" to mean simply "equating". What is meant by the 'heirs' of philosophy? Unfortunately Lazerowitz is not available without subscription. However, we have this:

“In his Blue Book (1958) he [Wittgenstein] referred to his own work as "one of the heirs of the subject that used to be called philosophy".

Wittgenstein felt that previous philosophers had tied themselves in knots by asking the wrong sorts of questions. They thought philosophical problems were to do with understanding the nature of the world but Wittgenstein thought they were all problems of language. Sort language out and you could knock philosophy on the head.”

Basically the Wittgenstein reference by Joll appears to refer to the ideas of Wittgenstein that the philosophy extant before his contributions was now "dead", and the new era of "post"-philosophy had begun. Some call this Wittgenstein's "antiphilosophy".

Joll's reference to Elden (Understanding Henri Lefebvre) refers to "Heidegger's fundamental ontology - the project of Being and Time - but closer to his later thought of the Uberwinden, the overcoming of metaphysics. A quote from Lefebvre reads:

"The transition from philosophy to meta-philosophy has been going on for more than a century....that is works... which are already no longer philosophical in the classic sense. (Frankfurt school, Lukács, Heidegger, Axelos, etc.)"

Elton goes on to say: "Lefebvre's notion of metaphilosophy seeks to remedy this: "it answers the question of the philosophers and yet it is no longer philosophy."

Apparently then, metaphilosophy in the sense of post-philosophy by Joll is meant to refer to the notion of meta in the sense of a theory replacing philosophy, a metatheory, a discipline over and above philosophy itself. Brews ohare (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Our role is to summarise, not simply quote or synthesis. The article is available in the reference for those who want to do further. I know you like this article, but it is one of several sources and they need to be given equal weight. In particular we cannot state that Joll summarises the situation as that implies his summary has more authority than the others. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: In your latest reformation of what Joll has to say you end with the sentence

" He further suggests that 'meta' may be used in the sense of "post-philosophy" "

Now, above is given a very long assessment of the sources Joll invokes along with his use of the term "post-philosophy". The conclusion I draw from looking at this material rather carefully is as you have stated here. However, I fail to grasp what possible use can be ascribed to your sentence in view of there being absolutely no discussion of what "post-philosophy" means in the article. Why do you want to drop this sentence out of nowhere into the article? I simply took it out. Brews ohare (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of my 'unsupported opinion'

In this edit Snowded removed the following remark:

"Metaphilosophy is intent upon providing an overview and evaluation of methods philosophy-wide, and is not intent upon taking over the various schools of thought in various sub-disciplines."

His reason is given as: rv unreferenced personal opinion.

It's fair to say the removed statement is unreferenced, but to suggest that it is simply a "personal opinion" needing further support is ludicrous. There is no philosopher that would disagree with this remark, as is fully evident from the few sentences (fully sourced) that precede it in the lead. Its purpose here is very simply to underline the fact that meta-philosophy is not to be confused with philosophy proper and its classical sub-fields, a confusion that can result from skimming over the introduction, as shown by some confusion expressed in the RfC underway on Talk:Philosophy here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you say what it would mean for metaphilosophy to take over certain schools of thought in sub-disciplines? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: That's an interesting question. I suppose if it were to happen that careful examination of the methods of philosophy demonstrated some problems of methodology in some sub-field, that would provoke a revolution in that area. It wouldn't be a take-over, exactly. More like reinforcing old buildings so they were more earthquake resistant. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If its self-evident why say it? No one is claiming the negative intent and there is no literature to support it. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple questions

The following paragraph seems to capture the idea of 'metaphilosophy' rather simply for the average (non-philosophical) reader:

"What is philosophy? How should we do it? Why should we bother to? These are the kinds of questions addressed by metaphilosophy - the philosophical study of the nature of philosophy itself."

I suggest it be added somewhere in the introduction as an easier and less dry approach to the subject that makes clear what 'mataphilosophy' is about. It is similar to the introduction to the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, which begins:

What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? .

This choice indicates that Nicholas Joll also thinks this is a good approach for an introduction. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that could make a very good quote to include after the lede. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Or, worst of all: 'What is philosophy?' Most students and practitioners of philosophy, we suspect, have felt something of the unease Ayer expresses in this quote... Indeed, this conception of philosophers and philosophy has long been lampooned... That people have misconceptions about what philosophy is and what philosophers do is not peculiar to Philosophy. Some people don’t know ... about the astronomer’s profession. What may be peculiar to philosophy, however, is its practitioners’ feeling that the request for clarification is, as Ayer puts it, the ‘worst of all’ — worse than the common misunderstandings... The astronomer might well become irritated by requests for horoscopes, but, again, he will hardly experience the embarrassment so well known to the philosopher... It is no easy matter to explain what we do... it isn't obviously the case that there is a particular region of objects... that philosophers make it their special business to study... what philosophers actually do seems hard to communicate expect by getting people to do some philosophising themselves... Partly, however, our embarrassment at the question of what we do may also reflect the fact that, to put this a bit provocatively, we do not know."

— Overgaard, Gilbert and Burwood, An Introduction to Metaphilosophy

It was reverted for belaboring "the investigation of the nature of philosophy". Readers asking "What is philosophy?" should see the philosophy article... Those who are asking "what it is to ask what philosophy is" are the target audience, i.e. "the average (non-philosophical) reader".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf: There are three views of what metaphilosophy is, all documented in the WP article and in Contemporary Metaphilosophy. There is the school to which apparently you subscribe that metaphilosophy is the metatheory of philosophy. That position, while not denied, is labeled "narrow and tendentious". The second position held by Heidegger and by Williamson among others, is that there is no metaphilosophy, only the 'philosophy of philosophy', part of philosophy. The term 'philosophy of philosophy' is mentioned in the lead to metaphilosophy. The third position, taken to be that of Lazerowitz who coined the term (according to him), is that metaphilosophy encompasses both these views and advantages itself by straying back and forth over this boundary as the discussion requires. With this latter more general view of the subject, the musings over ‘What is philosophy? How should we do it? Why should we bother to?’ are within the scope of metaphilosophy, as explained in detail in the article and in Contemporary Metaphilosophy and, of course, in the Cambridge University Press's concept of An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To push this point a bit further, given the general approach of the article, and the misconceptions of its content that apparently are possible given the present lead, it would be salutary to include these questions in the lead to make the meaning more obvious to the casual reader. Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added two sources to the lead that might make the matter clearer. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

• Hampl M., (2000) Reality, Society and Geographical/Environmental Organization: Searching for an Integrated Order, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Science, ISBN 80-902686-2-5

62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metaphilosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905143806/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5526 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5526
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.southernct.edu/departments/philosophy/metaphilosophy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

/*/*description consensus needed*/*/

-Just found this Metaphilosophy article in Wikipedia; (editors) could change the first two "philosophy" descriptions in this Metaphilosophy article and the Philosophy article, and make them the same-please, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)