Talk:Philosophy/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Proposal Again

Andrew asked me to repeat my proposal. As far as I can see, we are dealing with a fairly short piece of the article. I suggest one of you - or both of you - post your preferred version for discussion to give other editors a fair chance of seeing if a resolution can be reached without having to track back through what is now a very long discussion and an extraordinary number of diffs. This seems to be the way we might reach consensus (as honestly the two of you don't seem likely to reach consensus any time soon. (If the proposal is to have no mention of Bacon, I'm against it, so there's no consensus on that; at the same time I think a number of names really need to be removed as UNDUE.)

I also suggest you might each take a deep breath and look at the following from Wikipedia is not. I do have the sense that you are each marshaling extensive knowledge and effort to defend a difference which really doesn't matter a great deal to an ordinary reader of an introductory article.

A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

What the hell, I'd do something like this (although if it was just up to me, I'd take out the list beginning with Galileo because lists don't tell the reader anything:

"Among the founding figures of modern philosophy were Francis Bacon, who argued the philosophical case for empirical science as a project for all humanity, and Descartes, who showed how geometry and algebra could be combined and used within science.[35] Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant were other key philosophers of the Enlightenment period [36][37][38] although influential contributions were also made by Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith. The period is generally considered to end with Kant's systematic attempt to simultaneously limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom.[39][40]"

Thanks. Comments on what seem to be the key aspects to this proposal...

Obviously I am ok with saying Bacon and Descartes are both people most often described as the true founders. I've sourced it solidly.
Then you've stuck with the first grade and second grade list approach of the current article. Not sure I really like it, but I don't have a counter proposal right now.
For the first grade list, currently known as the canonical list, you've gone with the same canonical list which I have disagreed with because it misses Hobbes and Rousseau, both of whom are at least as important as all the others in that particular list according to numerous authorities. (They are certainly both more typical of "canonical" treatment than Berkeley.)
Then you have the also ran list but extremely stripped down so that it almost mentions no standard philosophers except the two I suggested moving up to the other list. II am not saying Galileo, Newton, Pascal and Smith should not be there but I have to say that if we are going to have an also ran list then I see no reason making it that short, nor that idiosyncratic. It would be odd if the article does not mention people like Berkeley and Montesquieu, surely? I think that the approach on this list so far was indeed probably a bit too inclusionist, but I think the logical compromise, if that is what you are looking for, is to prune a little less aggressively.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The usual trouble with lists. Everyone will agree on a few names, nobody will agree on all of them. And ultimately it doesn't matter because three months from now the lists will look nothing like what anyone decides this week. Personally I don't agree that Hobbes or Rousseau are as important as Spinoza, let alone Kant, but I am sure there are sources supporting a variety of different selections.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You sound a bit pessimistic of trying to find any agreements again! :) Actually I think the sourcing available is not at all as variegated as it is being made out to be. The lists as they were are not far from any fair attempt to make an inclusionist consensus list, and if we are going to have lists, being slightly inclusionist is necessary or else the discussion will indeed just keep going in circles. We are talking about getting the details right and not a total disaster like the discussion about the 20th century section ended up being. FWIW Hobbes was the first Cartesian political philosopher and Spinoza certainly recognized him that way. He was less discussed in the Enlightenment itself because so controversial but most commentators describe especially Locke as someone who worked on the foundation of Hobbes. Rousseau is more of a problem perhaps but the reason is again easy to spot: he was always much more important on the continent than in England. He was a critical inspiration to Kant and often seen as the basic source for all German Idealism. In terms of importance outside philosophy there is Romanticism, and the little matter of the French Revolution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'll just add (re: the list) that it is a temporary stub until a prose narrative can be written. I do think adding Milton (!) and deleting Reid is the sort of indefensible edit that makes me doubt Lancaster's familiarity with the basic scholarship. 271828182 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now you have something against Milton and we all have to respect that also. The list currently isn't sourced, and you've deleted KDTA's tag to that effect several times. Anyway I consider it as an un-sourced list that can still be tweaked, and I certainly am not intending to insist on Milton. There was a call for the list to be trimmed, so maybe delete Reid and Milton? By the way, Galileo wrote before Descartes, so putting him in as a member of a movement you say was founded by Descartes is a bit odd? I had previously suggested moving him to the Renaissance, but maybe we have not found the right way to handle him yet. I'd say he is like Machiavelli and one of the authors who leads to modernity. (Descartes mentions the Galileo controversy in critical places, but not by name, as a source of his programme. Bacon mentioned Machiavelli, by name, as a source to be thankful for in his. Descartes also wrote critical passages about his programme which were paraphrases of Bacon. All this, as I am sure you know, can be found in modern secondary sources.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just my whim. John Milton is many things, but classifying him as a philosopher is a stretch, let alone one of the influential ones of the early modern period. But you did that without justification, in the same edit where you deleted Thomas Reid, one of the most extensively discussed non-canonical figures of early modern philosophy. Frankly, this just shows you don't know the subject. Also, I never wrote or implied Descartes founded "a movement" of which Galileo was a part. I'm the one arguing WP shouldn't be in the "founder of modernity" business at all. 271828182 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard to understand then why you objected to me including a comment that Bacon and Descartes are both described as founders of modern philosophy by saying that you did not think the sources I was citing justified saying Bacon had the same status as Descartes? That edit summary, and remarks in above sections about Descartes seem to show that you do describe him as the person normally known as the founder of modern philosophy. Concerning Reid, bring a source to the discussion and live up to the standards you are insisting on for others please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Read what I wrote carefully, and that should help you understand. I never wrote or implied early modern philosophy is a "movement". The sentence refers to philosophy in a period of time, which includes Galileo and Descartes and many others. Your treatment of Bacon and Descartes as equally important "founders" or "initiators" of early modern philosophy is not supported by the sources. That said, I don't think WP should take sides in so vague a title at all. As for Reid, I am tempted to paraphrase Louis Armstrong's famous quote on jazz, but you could try the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under "Common Sense School", for a start, or the Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid. 271828182 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't tag the list, but I don't disagree with the tag. My suggestion is to keep it minimalist, otherwise you're trapped in the "if x, then why not y?" debate. But I am out of suggestions, so I'll leave you guys to it. Not my period, as I said.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KDTA I think you did tag it. See [1]. Anyway, I have not removed Reid, and I am not re-instating Milton, but I note 271828182 simply refuses to give a source for the list, which is oddly inconsistent given the approach to other points of discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no source for the list. As I have repeatedly said, it was a temporary measure to include everyone I could think of (major and minor), until I got around to a rewrite of the section (a "prose narrative" approach as KD said regarding the 20th century subsection). I did not deliberately remove the tag; it must have gotten lost in the multiple edits. In any case, I don't think it really needs a source, considering how mild the claim of "influential contribution" is, and how major the remaining names on the now much-pruned list are. 271828182 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypocritical?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I've never said every claim in Wikipedia must be sourced. 271828182 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I never made this exact claim but you are still clearly hypocritical. Anyway, can you please justify the inclusion of Christian Wolff? You've now reverted several attempts to remove him during recent attempts to trim the list. The list has been shortened significantly and now lacks many quite well known people including Hutcheson, Vico, Shaftesbury etc. Is Wolff a personal interest of yours? If you are claiming this list needs no sources, then I guess you also need to claim that it is something good faith editors can agree on without difficulty?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just pointed out how your accusation is false, so you conclude the opposite. Typical. As for Wolff, again, that you don't know that he (like Reid) is a major philosopher of the period is further evidence that you know approximately jack over squat about the subject you presume to tell others about. To quote the easiest source—Wolff's WP article—"He was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant. His main achievement was a complete oeuvre on almost every scholarly subject of his time, displayed and unfolded according to his demonstrative-deductive, mathematical method, which perhaps represents the peak of Enlightenment rationality in Germany." Anyone who has ever read (e.g.) the first Critique knows Wolff. It is indeed something good faith editors who know the subject can agree on without difficulty. 271828182 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So the source is Wikipedia? I am not going to argue this one further, but I continue to point to the seeming inconsistency.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Next revert by 271828182

Concerning this revert I note the following reasons for reverting it:-

1. Deletion of any reference to mainstream descriptions of Bacon and/or Descartes as "founders" of modern philosophy is deletion of something which is frequently and consistently found in published reliable sources. The justification has been wholly framed in terms of 271828182's personal preferences. As mentioned many times already it does not matter in WP policy whether a common mainstream position is not a consensus one. The main positions in the field's literature deserve to be mentioned, and selecting "winners" is against WP:NEUTRAL.

2. The reversion back to "The canonical academic sequence of early modern philosophy focuses on..." from the new proposal "Textbooks covering early modern philosophy often focus on the sequence of..." is firstly ungrammatical (sequences do not focus) and secondly in conflict with the explanation and defense that 271828182 has given about the "canonical" wording on this very talk page, which was that "canonical" in this sentence was coming from sources for whom, to use the wording of 271828182 "it is not a judgment of greatness or importance, but a report of who the usual suspects are in philosophy curricula on the early modern period". The normal usage of the word "canonical" is of course in legal or religious contexts for the most holy and unquestioned wisdoms or judgements. 271828182 has insisted that readers thinking that is intended here would simply be wrong. It is therefore striking that 271828182 not been willing or able to explain clearly why such a word with such an obvious possible misunderstanding, needs to be insisted upon in a paraphrase as opposed to a direct quote. The clear implication, given the editing history building up, is that it is intended to mislead and give a different meaning. Indeed, if the canonical wording being insisted upon just means there are lots of textbooks and curricula mentioning these people it is doubtful whether it should stay in the article?

I hope my reasons for reverting the revert are clear but at this point I would very much like other editors to enter the discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, I deleted "comparably." Gassendi, D'Alembert and so on might have been influential, but to suggest their influence is comparable to Spinoza or Kant is insupportable. You won't find a mainstream source saying that.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I don't think anyone is openly arguing that Gassendi and D'Alembert are equally influential as Spinoza and Kant, although I can see how 271828182 is going to come to that: 271828182 added the "comparably" in order to be consistent about the claim that there is no place in this section that is supposed to be about the most influential writers. I'd agree with you that the list of canonical writers sound like they are the most influential. 271828182 insists that "canonical" is supposed to be read by all of us as meaning "appearing most of often in typical curricula" or something like that, and specifically has nothing to do with "importance". Sounds like you also can't read it that way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I have responded to the "initiators of modern philosophy" above. In brief, it is an excessively vague WP:PEACOCK judgment, and the article can live without it. 2. As noted in my edit summary, the standard use of "canonical" is "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>". That's how the word is used here. Nothing holy or unquestioned implied, unless literature professors talking about the canon imply that. I have never mentioned textbooks, however, and the Nadler, Rutherford, and Kuklick aren't textbooks, so I don't see the justification for inserting that word over "canonical", which is plainly used by multiple scholarly sources. Again, if Lancaster objects to "canonical", he is not reverting me, he is objecting to the scholarship. 271828182 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are not directly quoting then we do not have to use the same words sources use, and we should not do so if they will give a wrong impression. If you claim on a talk page explanation that the word canonical is being used to mean frequently the subject of educational curricula then obviously this explanation should be good enough for the article. Why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the word "canonical" is being used in its standard sense (according to Merriam-Webster), it communicates more information, and "textbooks" is neither implied nor stated by the sources. (E.g., in curricula, the sequence most commonly isn't presented in a "textbook", but in the primary sources.) 271828182 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, I have responded on point 1, where 271828182 claims to have given an explanation, above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe both take a break. The difference you are arguing about is not important to the audience at which the article is aimed. As long as the important names are there, the number of people who care whether they are called "important," "influential," "canonical" or "frequently mentioned in text books as" is probably, well, two. I mean, seriously.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KDTA, I'd be happy if other editors would examine the problem instead of me but no one has yet waded in above ankle depth. First please note that the disagreement is not quite as you describe. The word "canonical" is only important to one editor, 271828182. I do not mind if that word stays in the article. The problem is that the word is not important as such to either of us except in one very specific sense which effects editing in a larger way. It is being used by 271828182 to define a rule he has set for all editors of this passage: no source which does not use this exact word can be used to add to or modify the list of philosophers in this section. For example if a source says someone was one of the most important, one of the most influential etc, 271828182 argues that this does not mean the same as canonical. If you try to change the word canonical to something more general, it is then that 271828182 argues that the EXACT word must be used, simply because it appears in two sources. Please consider if you find this approach acceptable and comment. The philosophers who 271828182 is trying to demote compared to how they are presented in any neutral and broad overview of reliable sources in the field are especially Bacon, Hobbes and Rousseau.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not acceptable. We do not have to determine who is canonical. All the reader needs from a list is an indication of who the big names are. I strongly suspect the reason other editors are not involved - and indeed I am only ankle deep - is that the content issue here is very easily resolved. There are about ten different ways to say what we want to say, all acceptable. The stand-off between the two involved editors is not easily resolved - hence my disengage suggestion. You may not realise it but (I did a word count), you are past 14,000 words on this issue, which means you've written a forty page book between you (to say nothing of following the links). I think this is out of proportion, which is why I am backing away.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

For the record, I have no interest in "trying to demote" Bacon, Hobbes, or Rousseau. All three are major philosophers of the period and should be included in this sub-section. Indeed, if I recall correctly, around a year ago, I was the one who inserted Hobbes and Rousseau into the (at that time very short) list of "canonical figures". However, in this recent round of revisions, I wanted to source that "short list" more clearly, and found it difficult to justify them, so I moved them a place-holding big list. What I am aiming to include (in a substantive revision of the section) is (1) the, well, canonical modern sequence (Descartes-Spinoza-Leibniz / Locke-Berkeley-Hume / Kant), and then (2) to explain (briefly) how early modern philosophy is a much bigger range of figures and issues than just the rationalism vs. empiricism framework that the British Hegelians bequeathed to university curricula. But, of course, if even preliminary, well-sourced edits meet with such misunderstanding and animus, I am not sanguine about elaborating more informative historical claims. (I have largely withheld my complete revision of the nineteenth century section because it is insufficiently sourced to withstand hostile critics.) 271828182 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you KDTA for your comments, which is apparently helping get a more reasoned response. My concern about the proposal of 271828182 is, to repeat, that by focusing on one word editors are supposedly then not allowed to add from other strong sources concerning especially Bacon, Hobbes and Rousseau. To demote these people on this wording technicality, even though they are frequently cited as absolutely critical turning points, seems silly. To clarify a side issue, I've probably gone to far in trying to guess your intentions above. I do not mean to accuse 271828182 of too much, but the above mentioned "position" itself about this word canonical seems not to be a way of working seems simply to make consensus editing by multiple volunteers impossible. As I described it a few times, you seem to make rules up, possibly with good intentions, and then insist everyone follow them as if they were a policy even if no one else finds the rules to be good ones. The effect, whatever the intentions, breaches WP:NEUTRAL. Anyway, I do not believe that any fair description of recent editing on this article can be described as other editors being strict about the sourcing of 271828182!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly recognize the "Descartes-Spinoza-Leibniz / Locke-Berkeley-Hume / Kant" axis, whatever we want to call it, and agree it should be highlighted. Bacon is not part of that, but he is surely an important transitional figure. Is there any problem pointing that out? As far as Hobbes and Rousseau are concerned, yes, they're other important figures. It's just a matter of sorting these (and maybe a couple of other) philosophers into the correct two or three sentences. Is there substantive disagreement on what I've said here? Would a compromise be to mention the seminal role of Bacon, then the core (canonical/key/whatever) figures, with Descartes either included with Bacon or with the next set? I do have reservations about the "early modern philosophy is a much bigger range of figures and issues" project; it might well be, but is that what the standard sources say? I am nervous of OR there, but perhaps that is premature.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Axis is a new word for it. Anyway, this axis is what precisely? According to the "canonical" quotes, it is basically the way that curricula teach the subject. Is that the same a what we want on Wikipedia, i.e. a list of the most notable people and events? I would say that this axis or canon or curriculum is also an approximate list of some of the most notable philosophy in the early modern era, and so as a starting point, not such a bad source for us. (I'd say it kind of summarizes the Cartesian line of philosophy more or less.) We all seem to agree. However this type of list will tend not to fit "transitional figures" like Bacon and Rousseau, partly because they do not categorize well for a curriculum. So we need to supplement it. You seem to be concerned that if you supplement it, the list will explode but I disagree. Bacon has now been handled as a transitional figure, and I think we can do the same for Rousseau near the end of this section. That leaves Hobbes and I've tried to separate him out for special mention which I think is justified because he started the social contract thing which is so important to this period and which should be mentioned anyway. I really can not think of anyone else who would be a challenger for being in that main stream of early modernity. IMHO early modernity is actually a pretty simple subject to summarize, at least if we stick to a summary of what is mainstream. (For example it is clear we are not putting Vico in the list of most important figures, even though some people see him as quite notable. I do think he could be considered for the also ran list but by definition that list should not be argued about too much in my opinion.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits series of edits by 271828182

I am a little uncomfortable about some reasonably significant changes that have been recently. I know that we have discussed before how the handling of periods or eras in philosophy could be improved but some of these changes seem over-simplistic and actually going in a direction for the worse. Attempts to tweak and adapt have been reverted. I have started some discussion on the above editor's talk page, but discussion has not gone very far so I would like to move discussion here and ask what others think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some notes on periods in philosophy. I consider the following to be a least controversial summary that will agree with almost any source which focuses on the particular periods being discussed:

1. The most basic and broad distinction is either simply between modern and pre-modern philosophy, or perhaps less controversially, between pre-Socratic, post-Socratic, and modern. The turn turning points are Socrates and/or Plato on the one hand and Bacon and/or Descartes on the other.

2. Post Socratic philosophy can be divided many ways, but Hellenistic, then Medieval, then Renaissance (as in the current article) is reasonable as long as it is understood that Renaissance humanism is just a new flavor in this tradition and to include people who made a fundamental break with that tradition such as Machiavelli is going to be controversial. Effectively, classical philosophy in the broad sense survived strongly until the 18th century and over-lapped with modernity. (So trying not to mention this overlap so as to make the schemes all neat is misleading.)

3. Machiavelli is a fore-runner of modernism. He opposed the Socratic approach to reality of taking one's bearings from ideals, arguing that in practice this can lead to bad and not good results, and instead he argued that people should take their bearings from real experiences, meaning that people should also read mainly about things that really happened. This is precisely what Bacon then argued in the bigger scheme of how to study nature as a whole. Bacon named Machiavelli as an inspiration on several occasions, and these connections have been commented on in published studies despite the fact that this early period is not the most popular amongst academics. Machiavelli is certainly not a humanist in any normal sense of the term. He might be chronologically a Renaissance event, but not a typical philosopher of the period.

4. Modernism can be divided different ways, but the key turning points are generally described as (not counting Machiavelli and the "pre-modernists" like Bodin and Montaigne) Bacon and/or Descartes, then Rousseau and/or Kant, then Nietzsche and/or Kierkegaard. But again this should not be over-simplified. The second and third waves represent not so much new doctrines as doubts and debates, and the pre-Rousseauian first wave of modernity still basically provides the core of the fields in modern life: economics, science, politics, legal theory, etc. (That's why these divisions are within modern philosophy in its broadest description, not new eras.)

5. One conclusion out of this which I feel from previous discussions is widely agreed with here is that there are overlaps, and that categories like the above are not meant to be strictly chronological even if there might be textbooks which handle them this way. I feel concerned that recent edits have however pushed for that approach.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are singling me out, I will paste my most recent response to your points from my Talk page, to save time:

Your claim that "Machiavelli, Bodin and Grotius are quite obviously mentioned in many works as early modern philosophers", like much of what you have said above, is unwarranted by the literature, at least for the first two. It is silly to accuse me of original research when I am presenting multiple verifiable sources for my edits — reference works from the most prestigious university presses, reflecting the most recent scholarship — while you have presented no sources at all, just empty proof substitute hand-waving about what you regard as "quite obvious". As I said, Grotius does turn up in reference works on the early modern period. If you wish to relocate him to the long list in early modern, I will not object. (I had him there when I was drafting it myself, but moved him when I noticed he was already mentioned in the earlier section, and felt a specific tie to political philosophy was more desirable than the current, temporary laundry list in early modern.) Yes, there are no sharply-cut boundaries in the history of philosophy, but given the current structure of this section of the article — which is by its nature chronological — choices have to be made about where to mention philosophers. I suggest those choices must be guided by verifiable sources, preferably of the reference work variety that WP guidelines suggest. I have given such sources to answer your criticisms. What else do you want?

I, for one, find very little of what you wrote above to be "a least controversial summary that will agree with almost any source" on the history of philosophy. In short, give sources for your claims, not just watered-down Strauss. (I see now where you get your taste for proof substitutes.) 271828182 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Leo Strauss is indeed one WP:RS whose works could be used to source the above. As I did not mention him, you apparently ask for sourcing for some sort of rhetorical effect. Not everything Strauss said was controversial of course, far from it. Is that what you are trying to imply? If so then it would not be difficult to find a source which disagrees with me, given that we already have one that agrees with me. There are not so many recent authors who spent a lot of time on this particular subject, but I think most or all of them basically agree.

2. Coming to your reproduced reply please consider what exactly it is I am calling original research. Just because you find a work which says Machiavelli and Bodin were in the Renaissance, this does not mean you have found a source which says they are uncontroversially categorized as Renaissance humanists, and it certainly does not justify a creative over-simplification of the history of philosophy so that all philosophical movements fit into exact chronologically defined periods. They over-lapped, and some sources write about the Renaissance as a chronological period while others write about the typical philosophy of that period. However, the main theme of your recent edits is to remove any "illogical" signs of this. Please find a source for the way in which your edits seem to be insisting that there were no such over-laps? It is easy to source remarks from all sorts of commentators saying that Machiavelli and Bodin are absolutely untypical of their period, and a foretaste of modern philosophy. If you know anything about this subject you already know that.

3. Please also cease aggressively reverting all my recent attempts to edit this article. Where's that going? Your edits are way too unilateral at the moment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Regarding Strauss, I will refer the interested reader to Myles Burnyeat's 1985 article in the NYRB: [2] For those without access to its full text, one relevant sentence and its footnote:

Straussians know that the considered judgment of the scholarly non-Straussian world is that, while Strauss’s interpretation of the history of political thought contains some valuable insights, much of it is a tale full of sound and fury and extraordinary inaccuracies. [Footnote: For scathing judgments on parts of Strauss's work that I have not had occasion to mention, in each case by a scholar much respected in the field, it is worth looking up Terence Irwin's review of Xenophon's Socrates (Cornell University Press, 1972) in The Philosophical Review 83 (1974), pp. 409–413; Trevor Saunders's review of The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws (University of Chicago Press, 1975) in Political Theory 4 (1976), pp. 239–242; and the assessment of Straussian readings of Locke in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke (Cambridge University Press, 1969), chapter 12. The frustrations that outsiders experience when they try to engage in scholarly discussion with initiates are well illustrated by J. G. A. Pocock's attempt to debate Strauss's Machiavelli with Harvey Mansfield in Political Theory 3 (1975), pp. 372–405.]

The referenced exchange between Pocock and Mansfield is illuminating for exposing the shakiness of Strauss as an expert on Machiavelli.

2. The article doesn't say Machiavelli and Bodin are uncontroversially categorized as Renaissance humanists. As I said above, there are no sharply-cut boundaries in the history of philosophy, yes. That doesn't mean you can move Machiavelli and Bodin into a category where no source puts them (early modern), while removing them from a category where multiple sources put them (Renaissance). Again, you hand-wave about how it's "easy to source remarks from all sorts of commentators" without offering a single source. I've given several. If it's so easy, give some. Please make sure they're not Straussians and they use the term "early modern philosophy" in the sense established by current expert consensus.

3. The sentence introducing the history sub-sections should reflect those sub-sections, which is why I wrote the sentence that way, and I offered multiple sources to back it up. You're the one reverting sourced content in favor of unsourced opinion. I invite interested editors to look at the edits and judge for themselves. 271828182 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Burnyeat, as far as I know, is not relevant to the subject we are discussing. If you can cite Pocock in order to back your case up on the subject we are discussing then please do. Otherwise I think your remarks above are just a distraction. I've been spending a lot of time on Machiavelli articles, and I've used Pocock, Strauss, Mansfield, Marcus Fischer, Rahe, Skinner, and whoever else writes about him, as we should. Would you argue that we should only use Pocock on Wikipedia for anything about Machiavelli? Anyway, though they may emphasize things different ways, they also agree on many things, and no commentator I am aware supports the exact synthesized approach you have put together, and neither do the sources you cite. While academics can get nasty about each other, their disagreements are not always as big as they seem. I think your point 3 is pretty much the real core of your case, and not any real source you have. In other words, I asked you to give a source which disagrees with what I called uncontroversial (given that you already knew sources that agree) but in fact the only one you are using for what I object to is this Wikipedia article itself. You are doing this in the name of making the logical structure tighter. The problem is that reality outside Wikipedia does not have the same tightly logical structure. If there is no simple consensus we have no right to pretend there is one. See WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, perhaps I should spell out a bit more my understanding of your edits, based on your own explanations on your talk page and in edit summaries, because I have left it in between the lines above. Basically, your main reason for wanting to aggressively insist on removing all reference to Machiavelli, Grotius etc being untypical of the Renaissance, and/or precursors of modernity, and also the reason that you have even argued that Bacon is supposedly only a borderline modern, whose position you have therefore de-emphasized considerably, is simply the years they were active in, and whether they were before 1600 or after, or, as in the case of Bacon, both before and after. That is what I refer to as your only justification being tightening up of the logical structure of the article. Your edits went hand in hand with adjusting the starts and ends mentioned in the titles for the periods involved. It is nothing to do with any balancing of sources. Bacon is not a borderline Modernist philosopher, but recognized by Kant, Hume, Vico, Leibniz, d'Alembert, Rousseau, etc as the philosophical starting point of modern science; and more generally, willfully deleting or obfuscating any mention of how certain pre 1600 authors are seen as precursors of modern philosophy, something you know at least some sources for, has no justification even if it were controversial. (If it were controversial we could discuss how to balance the article, not how to delete all mention of one view.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Burnyeat quote is relevant to show that your offering Strauss as a reliable source demonstrates your view is outside mainstream scholarship. A mystifying aspect of your quarrel: the philosophers named in the Renaissance sub-section have been there for many months (Machiavelli for at least a year). I wasn't initially editing the Renaissance section (which I regarded as mostly satisfactory), I was primarily editing the Early Modern section. Machiavelli, Bodin, and Grotius were all in the Renaissance section before my allegedly "aggressive" edits. All I did was provide verifiable sources for content that was already there. And again, I repeat that you will not find Machiavelli or Bodin discussed in current reference works on Early Modern Philosophy. Check Rutherford, Nadler, Garber & Ayers' Cambridge History, Copleston (who puts Bacon and Grotius as well in the Renaissance), and volumes 4 and 5 in the Oxford History of Western Philosophy. Kenny's New History has Machiavelli in his third volume, but that is because he includes the Renaissance as a whole in that volume. I'm not the one trying to insert a questionable Straussian POV account of "modernity" into a capsule history section of an introductory encyclopedia article. I am trying to improve the article by removing unsubstantiated, vague, clumsily-written POV in favor of clear, concise neutral claims that are amply supported by citations from scholarly reference works reflecting current expert consensus. 271828182 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If your argument is that anything Leo Strauss would agree with must not be reliably sourced then obviously that argument is not going to go very far. Not only are Strauss (and Mansfield) obviously reliable sources by all WP definitions, but (unsurprisingly!) not everything they would agree with is even controversial to Cambridge School authors. And I have never said that the uncontroversial summary above was based on Strauss and Mansfield. You mentioned them as people who would agree with the summary as part of a remark which, strangely enough was supposedly arguing that I had no source. But for my own part I believe it can be sourced from pretty much anybody working on this period. One of the most recent sources from the Pocock/Skinner approach which contains a lot of commentary which is very much in line with this theme of Machiavelli being a forebear of modernity which you say they disagree with is: Bock, Gisela (1990), Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge University Press {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). I do not see my attempted uncontroversial summary as "Straussian" and you've not yet given any explanation about why you think it is controversial in any way. You are just changing the subject.
But more to the point, we are not arguing about fine points or the history of methodological arguments between academics. This article is about philosophy as a whole and only needs a few carefully chosen words for each "moment". So please consider: Pocock and the "Cambridge School" like to emphasize to a controversial extent how famous authors were just products of their time; Strauss and the "Straussians" like to emphasize to a controversial extent the opposite, and they emphasize the importance of big name individuals. That does not mean they disagree about everything, and indeed they do not.
Your reference to the disagreements between Mansfield and Pocock has no relevance at all to your own personal position that you want to delete reference to the fact that certain people in the 1500s are generally seen as being untypical of the 1500s and precursors of modern philosophy more well known in the 1600s. You are just personally trying to line up reality with convenient dates.
Your reference to some generalist works which place certain people in 1500s as a time period (and do so in different ways) does not address this at all and is no "canonical" justification for deleting information which can be well sourced and which does not disagree with general remarks about dates. I can not think of a single work about Machiavelli, Grotius, or Bodin which denies the normal argument that such individuals as precursors of modernity and as people who do not fit the normal mold of their time.
In exactly the same way, your sources can not be used to prove that humanism ended in the 1600s. The year 1600 simply does not have the importance you are giving it with your edits appear to demand. You are effectively deleting mention of the importance of individuals whenever they do not fit neatly in a chronological scheme you are developing. But in fact not fitting in with one's time is exactly what makes some individuals so interesting and important.
What I have found aggressive in your editing is your knee jerk deletions and reversions of attempts to link anyone writing before 1600 with modern philosophy. I am asking you to give a good reason for these actions or else stop such editing and please if you now understand my point, review what you have done and consider whether it can truly be justified. What my concern basically comes down to is that we should not be distorting sources in order to fit a neat chronology.
One way to respond in a way which would show good faith would be to actually explain what you think is controversial in my attempt to write a non controversial summary above. I think I could even find talk page postings by you which show that you agree with a lot of it? If your whole point does not come down to just wanting to line facts up artificially with dates, then please show it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP articles should not advance POV or OR. Being a "precursor of modernity" does not make someone modern, or else we could discuss Callicles and Protagoras in the modern section, too. This is a capsule summary of the history of philosophy, not an interpretative essay on who is "untypical of their time" or "what makes some individuals so interesting and important". It's bizarre (but very Straussian, of course) for you to accuse me of "distorting" or asking me to "justify" my edits when all I am doing is sticking to the sources and the facts. Chronology is a fact. Machiavelli died in 1527. Discussing him in a section on 1600-1800 is unjustified. That's not "wanting to line facts up artificially with dates", that's wanting facts to line up with, well, facts. 271828182 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to paint someone as a "Straussian" just because they've read Strauss along with other commentators on Machiavelli is nonsensical and also clearly ad hominem. Anyone who studies Machiavelli should read Strauss and Skinner and Baron etc. I've asked you to cite anyone to back your position. Please let's stick to the problem I actually raised, and not some fake one...

Your insistence that the sections are purely chronological is problematic and clearly not based on any consensus, because this has been discussed before here. Your sources can not help us decide on whether to work this way because this is an editing question.
Your claim to be concerned with no wanting to have to go too much in detail in this article would seem to me to be a poor justification for using sections in a strictly chronological way, because this method will distort inevitably UNLESS extra comments are included. That's why I prefer to move pre-modernists from the 1500s to an introductory paragraph in the early modern section.
But if the sections are going to be purely chronological, and we are going to put all modernists from the 1500s in "Renaissance philosophy" then it is obviously not strange that we would want to separate the authors generally given as exemplary Rennaissance philosophers as such, from those who are not generally seen this way. Right now a very distorted impression is being given which does nor reflect mainstream thinking at all. Deletion of sourced or source-able comments trying to make such a mainstream and obvious distinction are problematic, surely? And this is nothing to do with what your sources tell you. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

271828182, just for example,

Please give a reference which lists Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas More, Justus Lipsius, Jean Bodin, and Hugo Grotius as forming a recognized category of "secular political philosophers" known as "Reformers" (capital R).
Please give one which says that this Reformers group all "showed little direct interest in philosophy"
And perhaps one which says that this group known as the Reformers, even though it includes Thomas More, destroyed "the traditional foundations of theological and intellectual authority" in a way which "harmonized with the revival of fideism and skepticism in thinkers such as Erasmus, Montaigne and Francisco Sanches".
And why are Erasmus, Montaigne and Sanches being grouped in contradistinction to that other group? Is Montaigne less "destructive" than Thomas More?
Please give a source which says that Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant are "canonical" in early modern philosophy while Bacon and Hobbes are not. Canonical is a strong word and should be strongly sourced. The source you cite only says the list you call canonical are examples, not even canonical example, of empiricists and rationalists.
If we are going to be mentioning individuals who were not necessarily philosophers, but just somehow important to philosophy on a purely chronological basis then why are Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus not mentioned?

In short, the categories now implied have become terribly garbled, mixing vague hints about Renaissance philosophy itself (but mainly only its last phase) with all kinds of other things linked because they happened in the 1500s. No reader of this section would be able to get a basic summary of who the typical examples of Renaissance philosophy are because most of the people mentioned are 1500s individuals who are difficult to categorize (Machiavelli and Montaigne are famously so). Averroism is not even mentioned at all for example, and it is implied that Aristotelianism was not part of Renaissance philosophy, only "anti-Aristotelianism". That is wrong. Just because you put up footnotes that does not mean your sources actually justify your edits. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also going to supply some easy-to-find but just typical comments of the sort I am sure you already know can be found all over the place, which show how especially Bacon, and only slightly less clearly Machiavelli, are seen as starting points for certain aspects of modern philosophy. The purpose is simply to show that your claims that no one has said such things are simply disingenuous...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bacon quotes

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was one of the leading figures in natural philosophy and in the field of scientific methodology in the period of transition from the Renaissance to the early modern era.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bacon

adulatory ... assessments were offered by learned contemporaries or near contemporaries from Descartes and Gassendi to Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle. Leibniz was particularly generous and observed that, compared to Bacon’s philosophical range and lofty vision, even a great genius like Descartes “creeps on the ground.”
The response of the later Enlightenment ... a majority of thinkers lavishly praising Bacon while a dissenting minority castigated or even ridiculed him. The French encyclopedists Jean d’Alembert and Denis Diderot sounded the keynote of this 18th-century re-assessment, essentially hailing Bacon as a founding father of the modern era and emblazoning his name on the front page of the Encyclopedia. In a similar gesture, Kant dedicated his Critique of Pure Reason to Bacon and likewise saluted him as an early architect of modernity.
no historian of science or philosophy doubts his immense importance both as a proselytizer on behalf of the empirical method and as an advocate of sweeping intellectual reform
opinion varies widely as to the actual social value and moral significance of the ideas that he represented and effectively bequeathed to us. The issue basically comes down to one’s estimate of or sympathy for the entire Enlightenment/Utilitarian project
In the end we can say that he was one of the giant figures of intellectual history – and as brilliant, and flawed, a philosopher as he was a statesman.

Bodin

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bodin/

when historians do not compare Bodin to Machiavelli, they study often Bodin in comparison to those who came after him: Grotius, Althusius, Locke, and particularly Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau

Machiavelli

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/

Machiavelli appears as the first modern political thinker, because like Hobbes he was no longer prepared to talk about politics in terms set by religious faith (indeed, he was still more offensive than Hobbes to many orthodox believers), instead, he looked upon politics as a secular discipline divorced from theology.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/

Machiavelli lays claim to the mantle of the founder of “modern” political science, in contrast with Aristotle's classical norm-laden vision of a political science of virtue
Machiavelli has also been credited (most recently by Skinner 1978) with formulating for the first time the “modern concept of the state,” understood in the broadly Weberian sense of an impersonal form of rule possessing a monopoly of coercive authority within a set territorial boundary.
What is “modern” or “original” in Machiavelli's thought? What is Machiavelli's “place” in the history of Western ideas? The body of literature debating this question, especially in connection with The Prince and Discourses, has grown to truly staggering proportions.
Thus, Machiavelli ought not really to be classified as either purely an "ancient" or a "modern," but instead deserves to be located in the interstices between the two.

Finally, some sources (albeit only two online encyclopedias). About them: (1) the Machiavelli source concludes he shouldn't be classified as either ancient or modern — which rather resembles where he is currently in the article. So your source flatly flies against your own view. (2) The quote on Bodin merely says who he is commonly compared to, which implies nothing about whether he is an "early modern philosopher". (3) The very first quote from the Bacon article agrees exactly with my view, which you scoffed at only days ago: that he straddles the borderline between the Renaissance and early modern period. The rest of the quotes do nothing but point out that many later figures admired him. So what? You seem to have misunderstood my edit referring to some philosophers as "canonical". I am not saying these seven are the most important and everyone else is an also-ran: I am citing two expert sources who describe the Descartes-to-Kant sequence as canonical, as in a standard set of instructional texts. Adding Bacon, Hobbes, and Rousseau to that list, regardless of what you or I think, isn't verifiable content. So I am going to revert that particular edit. I gave two sources, both use the word "canonical", neither of which you appear to have read correctly.

Speaking which, you have simply misread the paragraph containing Machiavelli.

These new movements in philosophy developed contemporaneously with larger political and religious transformations in Europe: the decline of feudalism and the Reformation. The rise of the monarchic nation-state found voice in increasingly secular political philosophies, as in the work of Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas More, Justus Lipsius, Jean Bodin, and Hugo Grotius.[18][19] And while the Reformers showed little direct interest in philosophy, their destruction of the traditional foundations of theological and intellectual authority harmonized with the revival of fideism and skepticism in thinkers such as Erasmus, Montaigne and Francisco Sanches.[20][21]

This highly condensed summary paragraph deals with two topics, as indicated by the opening sentence: politics and religion. The second sentence concerns political thought. The third sentence concerns religious thought. Thus, the "Reformers" being referred to are Luther, Calvin, et al. (as attentive readers might have guessed from the capitalization). It is not a reference to Machiavelli & co. at all. Really, try not to edit until you have understood what you are editing. As for your challenge to provide a source for grouping Machiavelli et al together as Renaissance political thinkers developing new ideas about the state: I already did. Open the two books cited (sorry if they are not online, you may have to go to a library) and read the pages cited, and you will find all of the thinkers in that list discussed in those pages. Last, again, until you starting raising this fuss, I wasn't editing the Renaissance section. So interrogating me about who is and who isn't mentioned there is bizarre. I've added some references, copy-edited, and re-organized it in the past year, but for the most part I didn't write it. 271828182 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

reply

Finally, some sources. You've already shown in your discussion above that you know of sources. This discussion is not really about sourcing.
the Machiavelli source concludes he shouldn't be classified as either ancient or modern — which rather resembles where he is currently in the article. The article mentions, and is correct in doing so, that there are many sources which say Machiavelli is modern. So WP should probably take a position which allows for both sides also, right? And yet you've resisted any attempts to mention any such ambiguity even. You want him described purely as a renaissance writer. Or have I misunderstood your frequent edits to this effect? Please respond.
The rest of the quotes do nothing but point out that many later figures admired him. Far from it. Many of the quotes insist on his status as the key starting point of modernity. One of the modern quotes also actually equates his legacy with the Enlightenment. That makes him as "canonical" as anyone, surely? (And this does not make it wrong either to say that he straddles with the Renaissance. So do all the early modern philosophers, surely? Not my oft repeated point that these things are not as clean as you are trying to make them.)
You seem to have misunderstood my edit referring to some philosophers as "canonical". English works in ways independent of your intentions and so if what you write gives a message you claim not to insist on, please change that wording or allow others to do so without reverting them.
I am citing two expert sources who describe the Descartes-to-Kant sequence as canonical, as in a standard set of instructional texts. Adding Bacon, Hobbes, and Rousseau to that list, regardless of what you or I think, isn't verifiable content. I removed the word canonical because I do not see any reason why WP needs to accept such judgements from single authors or groups of authors. So that takes away that problem and allow us to use more than one source. Your statement that the importance of Bacon, Hobbes and Rousseau is un-verifiable is breath-takingly tendentious. Concerning Bacon, look at the quotes above just as a starter. Are d'Alembert, Leibniz, Kant, and so on really people we can just ignore when they all agree on this?
you have simply misread the paragraph containing Machiavelli. I quoted it directly and asked for sources. You clearly can't defend it. If the words can however be read as saying different things then please make them less ambiguous or allow others to do so.
for the most part I didn't write it. Perhaps not, but you are aggressively reverting anyone who tries to change it! As mentioned immediately above you are arguing that someone who wants to change it must not understand it. So your excuse is pretty weak?

I note you've continued reverting all attempts to improve the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the issue all along has been about sources. You still don't have any to justify moving Machiavelli or Bodin to the early modern section. The quotes you finally got around to unearthing from two online encyclopedias don't even justify it either, as I already pointed out. You continue to misread what I am defending (e.g., I am not saying Bacon, Hobbes, and Rousseau are unimportant — far from it, as I recently added to the article — but I am saying we can't describe them as "canonical" figures in early modern philosophy in the Descartes-to-Kant sequence without a source). I did defend the paragraph, and added a clarification for inattentive readers (as opposed to making a hash of the concluding sentence). You are wasting time with strawmen: I am not saying anyone who wants to change it must not understand it, I just pointed out YOU didn't understand it, and hence you shouldn't have changed it. 271828182 (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of straw men, you are apparently not reading what I write...

I have tried different compromises which you have rejected, and I have not insisted on Machiavelli and Bodin being in the modern section. I have raised general concerns about this strictly chronological approach but I am willing to accept it if others do. More importantly, even if we use this approach, I have also raised concerns them being presented as if they were typical of the Renaissance when you and I both already know that sources tend to discuss them more as predecessors of modernity than as typical Renaissance writers. It would be easy to explain this in many different ways without adding many words.
Concerning the word canonical I have argued we should not use that word at all, and also there is no reason why you should be allowed to use your insistence on this word as an argument which "disqualifies" all sources that do not use the word. This appears to be just a subtle way of trying to make sure your favored authors are being used exclusively.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) You and I know no such thing, as you have still yet to give any evidence that "sources tend to discuss them more as predecessors of modernity than as typical Renaissance writers". More generally, an article introducing philosophy is not the place for presenting judgments about who is "typical" of the Renaissance (whatever that means! this is a huge POV judgment) and who is a "predecessor of modernity" (same problems). If you want, introduce such complexities to the main article on Renaissance philosophy. Let's stick to clearly supportable overview here. (2) Let us review your "argument" against the word "canonical": "because I do not see any reason why WP needs to accept such judgements from single authors or groups of authors". WP reports verifiable encyclopedic content, which includes the consensus of experts. You seem to be ignorant of how "canonical" is being used here: it is not a judgment of greatness or importance, but a report of who the usual suspects are in philosophy curricula on the early modern period. If you knew anything about the topic, you'd know that (see Bruce Kuklick's classic essay on the topic in the Rorty/Schneewind/Skinner collection Philosophy in History). 271828182 (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have reverted attempts to adjust the impression being given that Machiavelli etc are typical Renaissance philosophers.
If this is not the place to discuss who is typical, then you should not be insisting on giving impressions about who is typical?
I have given sourcing concerning the link between Machiavelli etc and modernity.
More generally, if there is something else you want sourcing for please define it first. If this discussion is really about sourcing concerns then you could have tried to answer my attempt at the beginning of this discussion to ask you to define what you think is controversial. Please demonstrate your good faith and define any sourcing questions clearly.
I see no reason to use the word "canonical". Why is it so important to you?
You've demonstrated no "consensus" about who is "canonical" and to demonstrate consensus about something like that is both intrinsically difficult and I think also pointless given that we are trying to be encyclopedic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The History of philosophy article solves problems such as these by largely dispensing with citations. This is not my period, so I don't have a dog in the race, but it seems clear that the philosophers under discussion are transitional figures. So long as they are correctly described, does it really matter whether they come at the end of one section or the beginning of the next?KD Tries Again (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

No I do not think that is a critical point. I have expressed some preferences, but if I am being understood as mainly being concerned with the section in which transitional figures occur that is a misunderstanding. I have been worried by reverts and edits which seem to show an aim of not mentioning transitional figures as transitional figures, in order not to disrupt the "logical coherence" of the article's chronological sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Judgments about who is and is not "modern" are highly controversial, as the whole trend in the history of philosophy against Whiggish history and in favor of interpreting a philosopher in their historical context shows. Just as this article should not hail the Pre-Socratics as exemplifying truly Greek ways of thinking and Plato as foreshadowing Christianity, this introductory article should not take sides in declaring Bacon or Machiavelli as moderns. The Bacon IEP article [3], for example, is full of "on the one hand ... on the other" qualifiers. But you have selectively quoted only the "pro-modern", pro-Bacon judgments, the better to advance your preference. That's POV. As for "canonical", this is a description of the standard sequence of modern philosophy (3 rationalists vs. 3 empiricists). It is historically important and encyclopedic content, especially for an introductory article on philosophy. 271828182 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion: since we are editing by consensus, and it doesn't look very likely that the two editors engaged in this lengthy discussion are close to agreement, maybe each of you might post on this page - for discussion - how you think the sentences in dispute should read. This would make it easier for uninvolved editors to participate and help to find a resolution (or, you can both carry on arguing about it of course).KD Tries Again (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1. If Bacon, for example, is described in different ways by different sources, then logically we should keep the article neutral. I am not insisting on my preferences, but asking that 271828182 also do the same.

2. OTOH, please note that 271828182's preferences are not sourcing related at all. His main concern is to exclude sourcing that is confusing when compared to the "logical coherence" of the strict chronology he wants the article to be broken into.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a brief summary of the issues here?

Is there a brief summary of the issues here? It's alot to read from scratch. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ends with Kant? Maybe not quite so clearly

Next subject. The early modern sections ends with a sentences which says that, The early modern era is generally considered to end with Kant's systematic attempt to simultaneously limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom. The sources cited are...

Nadler, A Companion to Early Modern Philosophy, p. 1.
Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, vol. 3, p. xiii.

Problems:-

The sentence might be sourceable but once again seems to be claiming more than a Wikipedia needs to claim. Reading the sources might make sense in the context of those sources. For example Kant is perhaps often seen as the end of a particular dialogue in modern philosophy (or the start of a new one). So there is something notable to be put here, but the wording now seems questionable.
A practical manifestation of the problem is that people mentioned in the article as typical of early modern philosophy such as Adam Smith are after Kant or unaffected by him. Early modern philosophy in effect continued after Kant, in particular amongst those who accepted Hume's philosophy. (So it might be argued that early modern philosophy's main dialogue closed with Hume on the one hand, and on the other hand those who had come to doubt the modern project even though they were themselves modern philosophers.)
On the doubters side, I would argue Rousseau was the initiator. Certainly Kant treats Rousseau as a major source for this, and Hume as the person who woke him up. Kant is not necessarily an early modern himself in all sources, but he is generally discussed as someone who brought threads together in a new way. (That is actually how the Nadler source really describes him.) So this question I am raising now also links back to the question I have raised before, which is still not fixed, of mentioning Rousseau as a turning point. I believe people who are turning points are notable and can be mentioned that way, just as they often are in published sources. Sourcing is no problem with anything I am saying here.
Coming to the sources then, as far as I can see the Nadler citation must refer to page 3, not page 1, and actually Nadler says it ended just before Kant. Nadler calls Kant something new. So this implies he may mean Rousseau was the end or he may be intentionally unclear and be referring to the period as a whole, and the debates therein, which of course featured Hume and Rousseau. (Reminder: the google books link to this book is posted above.)
The Kenny quote can also be checked online. It actually says that early modern philosophy has two philosophical giants at its beginning and end, Descartes and Kant. This is not the same as defining those authors as the ends, but rather means that they were at the times of those ends.

Instead of me doing anything yet I post my points here and wonder if other editors might be able to tweak the sentence and its sourcing appropriately. As it stands there is no clear source for the sentence, but I do believe something about the key figures (Hume, Rousseau, Kant) in the last phases of the early modern period deserves to be said, just as I believe that there should be mention of the key figures at the beginning. The early modern philosophical period is unusual in the way in which it saw itself as a project being driven by the proposals of particular key individuals. It is still studied that way today, and so there is verifiable justification for this treatment, which is also common amongst sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenny describes Kant as the end of the "period," which I take to be the period of the "rise of modern philosophy" per his book title. Nadler's position is less determinate, but he seems to view Kant as the beginning of something new. So how about this?:

"The transition from the early modern era to modern philosophy proper came with with Kant's systematic attempt simultaneously to limit metaphysics, justify scientific knowledge, and reconcile both of these with morality and freedom." (I think that's enough and consistent with the two sources, but one could add:) "Kant's work, indeed, might be regarded as a new beginning in philosophy, rather than simply culmination of what came before (Nadler)."KD Tries Again (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Seems an uncontroversial incremental improvements, so I hope this can be done. But I keep open the proposal of possibly also adding a remark about the role of Hume and Rousseau in these events. Currently Rousseau is described as if he is in a different level of importance to Hume and Kant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim is about how the phrase "early modern philosophy" is generally used. As generally used, it refers to the period from (approximately) Descartes to Kant. The chapter from Kenny's 1994 Oxford History of Western Philosophy does so. The Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy [4] does so. Rutherford's Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy does so (that was the source of the "p. 1" source, not the Nadler, the many edits must have introduced a misattribution somewhere). Copleston does so also (see his vol. 4, pp. 54ff., and vol. 6, pp. 427ff.) I don't see what the problem is with saying this period is generally considered to end with Kant. I have replaced "end" with "culminate" to avoid implying somehow everyone stopped caring about substance, causation, skepticism, and the rest in 1787. (Also, that is the word Rutherford uses.) I was planning to add sentence describing Rousseau as a seminal early figure in the anti-Enlightenment reaction when expanding this section anyway (that is, replacing the "list" with "prose narrative"), so I have no objection to doing so. 271828182 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave and see what others can come up with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Updated observations.

I think just changing to culminate is too much like taking a position in the above question, and the sources are obviously divided. I prefer KDTA's approach. Calling someone a transitional figure does seem to be to be the easiest way to change a potential circular discussion about whether someone is the first or last into a trivial point which is easy to agree upon. Remember we should always be aiming at consensus and neutrality. Of course we can find sources for all kinds of things in this subject.
I am still hoping to see more about the bigger question about how the end of the period will be described. Hume and Rousseau are obviously critical along with Kant. Other notable figures in this period strike me as Herder and Burke. Some sources describe the Hume-Burke axis (to use KDTA's term) as the one which stayed faithful to the enlightenment while dropping some aspects, while the Rousseau-Kant axis is more critical and therefore, as we see by looking around at more sources, they are sometimes treated as being somewhat outside the main stream of the Enlightenment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep asserting that the "sources are obviously divided", but I don't see the evidence for that claim. The sources are (as the sentence says) generally in agreement that Kant is at the end of the period. 271828182 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I gave one example only, that being Nadler. Tell me if you want more. BTW note that I say that we can easily choose a wording which makes the differences between sourcing trivial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a serious question

Do all organisms inherently have what we would call philosophies? Do you have to call it a "philosophy" (or have a language or anything to even 'isolate' concept at all?) I don't mean a "love of wisdom" (the most useless etymology I have ever come across), but rather a standardized set of beliefs about the nature of the world? Even if they are primitive or not expressed in a human language or anything useful to us at all? I am not some moron saying "I think my cat is a logical positivist" (but if any of you wanna use that as a bumper sticker can I get some money kicked my way from the sales?). But I mean, like, when they teach gorillas to "use" sign language, is it actually developing a set of values about the fundamental nature of life, or are we really just making it act "like us" for, to be quite blunt about it, our amusement? (I'm not asserting that the gorilla would or could or even "should" understand the finer points, but since when did that disqualify any of us "highly-evolved" blobs from allowing the same for ourselves?) So, back to the point: Supposing that language or nuance are not defining characteristics of "thought" or "thought development" or "expression" (i.e., we all know that a dog growling is a sign of displeasure or anger -- even though the way the dog expresses himself is non-linguistic and very simple), do all organisms have philosophies, and does this merit inclusion in the article. 98.247.228.141 (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Yes I understand that the use of the word "standardized" betrays some obvious & inherently human thinking that probably leads, somewhere down the line to logical fallacy if probed or deconstructed enough. Yes yes, very douchey academic talk all around. 98.247.228.141 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Find a serious reference that covers that point and it can be discussed. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not; "philosophy" in nearly every sense, if not every sense, of the word is a purely human endeavor. Even the higher primates such as chimpanzees do not have anything that even NEARLY resembles philosophy. Voyaging^(talk) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A "human" is a philosophizing biped (though not necessarily rational). PPdd (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Branches of Art

I understand that the branches being considered are modern, however these are not the classical philosophical branches; namely political, mind, language and religion. I believe these should be deleted and the subjects should be only the classical branches, those are mostly what are part of a Philosophical education. Sovereignlance (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on current definition of Philosophy

Thoughts i like to share but not sure if this is the right avenue. This is also my first post. If i am doing something wrong please tell me.

This is the current definition of philosophy on wikipedia. "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."

To me, philosophy is the thinking and theorizing process that exist before and between actions for the purpose of discovering truth and what to do with it. All established academic disciplines, economics, physics and everything else were all initially the subject of philosopher’s contemplation. Philosophers thought about them until they convince themselves to move beyond thinking up theories to understand those subjects and onto actually proving their theories, with scientific methods developed by other philosophers. Where scientific method can be effectively applied to prove theories about the subject, advanced theories are able to be built on proven theories which can then proven by further application of scientific methods. Thus a loop is form and study of those subject become highly specialized giving birth to disciplines. Philosophers who become specialized in a particular discipline are then given name associated with their discipline, such as economist and physicist. Disciplines where scientific method are more applicable are grouped together under the broader label of science. The people who study a science discipline are brought under the broader label of scientist. These scientist are still philosophers who engage in philosophical theorizing between acts of proving their theories with scientific methods.

Subjects where the scientific method cannot be effectively applied, never got developed too far from the initial spark of thought about them. It only seems like philosophers only study general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language because understanding of them remains primitive (with all due respect); and philosophers who study specialized and advanced subjects are given broadly recognizable new labels.

Having already go on too long on the first sentence of wikipedia’s definition, let me just quickly end my view with the second sentence by saying this: Philosophical thinking usually involve critical, generally systematic approach and rational argument because they are usually the best when one try to think about truth and what to do about truth. Philosophy is not distinguished by its method, but by its intended goal and its limitation to thought. Utoneo (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to find some reliable third party sources to back up that perspective before we can considered any use --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to make the article as neutral as possible which means it has to cover all mainstream approaches reasonably well, as they appear in reputable publications. That does not mean we can't handle all the variant ideas further down in the article, but the first line is a line where we have the difficult job of not "picking a winner" but still saying something meaningful. So ideas are welcome, but indeed you'll need to present your ideas in terms of what published sources say, and don't say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. i will be back if i manage to find some sources. Utoneo (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at Metaphilosophy if you are less interested in philosophy than the definition of philosophy. — Philogos (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

New External Link: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online

I would like to add REP Online to the list of relevant external links within this article and other related articles but I am mindful of Wikipedia's rules and objectives and don't want to contradict the purpose of the site. Any thoughts? Claremethven (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lede

Reverted to Revision as of 10:36, December 13, 2010. No case made in discssion ofr insertion of

It should be noted that philosophy is not seen by all as contained by rationality, and that philosophy may take the essence of rationality itself as a matter of study. Philogo (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am curious how an extra-rational philosophy could even make an argument for itself without effectively denying its own premise, i.e. without becoming rational. Like the self-refuting assertion that "there is one absolute truth - that there is no absolute truth," so would a philosophy that denies reason destroy itself before it began, being void of any essence or usefulness, and immediately becoming a hypocritical philosophy if it should even try to assert itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.108.41 (talk)

Consistent with comment by 76.101.108.41, then, a philosophy may take the essence of rationality as the subject of study, but a philosophy may not state that it is NOT contained by rationality and remain a philosophy, because such a philosophy could not 1) analyze itself or 2) analyze other philosophies; not without denying its own premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.69.194 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My own feeling looking at your proposal is your wording makes a simplistic, technically wrong and hard-to-understand comment out of what is actually a quite complex point. However the fact that philosophy can involve criticism of rationalism is worth mentioning somewhere in the article if it is not already. Note that no philosophy is not "contained by rationality" even if it criticized itself. In fact philosophy should always contain criticism of itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was not mine but that of User:90.202.85.123; I reverted his edit incorporating these words back to your version as of 10:36, December 13, 2010. (see history). Philogo (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, anyway, that means I don't disagree with your reversion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dear, looks like 90.202.85.123 is v fond of his revision, but not justifying it here.Philogo (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple problems with this proposed addition: (1) it's too vague, (2) it's imprecisely sourced (cf. other references, where the specific is quoted), (3) the proffered references are primary sources rather than the secondary or tertiary sources found in the other references (shall we cite Aristotle or Aquinas's definitions of philosophy?), (4) it's an immaterial addition to the lede (shall we note all the other things some philosopher or another has questioned about the nature of philosophy?). 271828182 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I have invited 90.202.85.123 to discuss his proposal on this talk page. Suggest you and .--Andrew Lancaster encourage him to do so Philogo (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! The citations I have made are direct examples of philosophers working from outside or before the rules of rational argument - this is why it's not necessary to make use of secondary lit. Rational argument is certainly one mode of philosophical discourse, however it is not the only one - I feel this is an important area of philosophy to represent in an article such as this, especially whilst philosophers who disavow the method of rational argument where it is not applicable are mentioned. This is the case in Heidegger's discussion of moods in "What is Metaphysics?" where he explicitly calls doubt upon the suitability of such a mode of engagement with the phenomenon. Phenomenology itself, a whole movement in philosophy, is a descriptive, non-rational method of doing philosophy. As for the lucidity of my entry, I've since clarified what I was getting at - I'm a messy writer from time to time, guilty. 90.202.85.123 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello 90.202.85.123 if it is you; please sign your edits so we know. You do you not appear to have responded to the comments above by Andrew Lancaster and 271828182 and me.Philogo (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey again, yes it's me. I've tidied up my addition to the article and would love your feedback, cheers.90.202.85.123 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I do not think the following sentence you have added (never mind how true or well put or referenced)is appropriate in the lede. I think you should post suggested amendements to the lede on this page BEFORE you implement them. (You should be aware that the lede as was was arrived at by consensus among some twelve editors some many months ago and has remained remarkable stable ever since. As I recall it we spent at least a week and maybe 500 comments just on the rationality characterisation of philosophy.) Philogo (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

However, philosophy is not seen by all practitioners as limited by the methods of rational argument, and some philosophers see the suitability of such methods of engagement with problems as a matter for investigation.^[1]^[2]^[3]

With respect, it was my understanding when approaching the philosophy page that it was to provide a short summation of philosophy, which must of course be free from over-representing one view to the detriment of another. My intentions were not at all to sully the hard and admirable work of your good selves, but simply and humbly to make sure the lede was not misleading to any who read it. Any breach of wikipedian etiquette was not intentionally malicious, but simply sprang from unfamiliarity - I'm new to this community after all. In any case, happy to be on board! CsmSgn (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Note 271828182 said above it's an immaterial addition to the lede (shall we note all the other things some philosopher or another has questioned about the nature of philosophy?). and Andrew Lancaster said the fact that philosophy can involve criticism of rationalism is worth mentioning somewhere in the article if it is not already. You will see that prior to your edit the lede consisted of just three sentences. It was purposly terse. The second sentence It is distinguished by some from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument The purpose of that sentence was to differentiate Philosophy from other disciplines that might claim to be also be concerned with the matters outlined in the first sentence (e.g. Religion). I think we should revert to the orginal lede, and if you want to argue that the article should make your point somewhere then you should do so suggesting the appropriate section. If we accept into the lede one (metaphilosophical) view then to acheive balance we would have to admit a hundred others!Philogo (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the first practical concern is that if this type of thing is going to be mentioned it should at least be a clear and meaningful sentence. Then we'd have something to discuss. BTW the sourcing is also questionable. Let me put this another way: Would everyone agree that the two cited books of Nietzsche and Heidegger clearly are examples of "practitioners" who are not "limited by the methods of rational argument", and who see the "suitability" of "the methods of rational argument" for engaging "with problems" as a matter for investigation? Is it clear what the "methods of rational argument" even are in this context?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the first practical concern is whether the lede is reverted. If CsmSgn wants to argue that the article should include his sentence elsewhere he should do so in a new section below saying in what section of the article it should go. I note that Nietzsche and Heidegger are discussed in a section entitled Existentialism.Philogo (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is dubious that this belongs in that section either. Rousseau was the first person to question whether reason was all it was cracked up to be. He influenced Kant, German Idealism, Burke, and Romanticism. From there we get people like Hegel, Nietzsche etc. But that does not mean any of them were not using rational argument themselves when "investigating" the "problems" of reason. So I think that yes, the sentence as it stands is not suitable. Practically I'd say that before discussing what might be acceptable though we should see proposals here on the talk page that actually make some uncontroversial and clear sense. Because philosophy is knowing you are ignorant, in the classical formulation, doubt about its own power goes back to the beginning and it is possible the subject of such doubt might be able to fitted properly in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that Rousseau was the first person to question whether reason was all it was cracked; I am no historian but I thought such views were ten-a-penny. As you intimate the matter would be pertinent in the lede only if some philosophers of repute argued with irrationality being the basis and not the object of thier arugument, thus beng a caveat to the seond sentence in the lede. I still however believe that the first practical concern is whether the lede is reverted.Philogo (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no, and of course this is the problem - how to explain it in such a way that it is meaningful. Like I said, doubting the value of rationality is part of philosophy since the beginning, because philosophy in a sense studies doubts. There are all kinds of doubts about rationality. The doubt about whether it can discover what is true for example. Rousseau's doubts were a bit shocking and special in that doubted that man was even rational by nature, and therefore whether being a thoughtful person could make you unhappy. (Of course non philosophers always said that, but this was a philosopher saying it.) He is the ultimate source of some of the more "continental" and "post modern" angsts. I am not against reverting the lede. The current sentence does not say anything I think can be sourced. It might be intended to mean something else, but then by this stage it would be better to try ideas out here on a talk page and not on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If it agreed we whould revert, then perhaps you better do it. I did it last time and I am wary of being party to a revert war.Philogo (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey again, been away from the computer for a week on yuletide family business - hope you're both having a good one! With regards the idea that to include one metaphilosophical position we would have to include a hundred - does this not stand also for the position that philosophy depends on rational argument? By your own admission, if we include one then we open the floodgates to more. If you do not want the lede to become too complicated then should we include either, at the risk of bias? As it stands the lede misrepresents philosophy as a whole. As mentioned, phenomenology is a descriptive, non-rational method of tackling philosophy - and much Eastern philosophy does not rely on rationality at all. To sell them both with the stamp of rationality is a huge oversight in my opinion. CsmSgn (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As Philogo well knows, this argument has been going on for years! Hi, Philogo.

I fought for the position that if philosophy is by definition rational, then questions about rationality are by definition not philosophical questions, just as questions about whether or not we should accept the parallel postulate are by definition not questions within Euclidean geometry. I took the position that we should argue for rationality within philosophy instead of assuming rationality a priori.

This fight I lost. Have fun. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I see no reason to believe that defending itself is part of what defines philosophy. Philosophy is not like religion, and also for the same reason it is not like any fixed body of axioms and proofs such as found in Euclid. Indeed, when it comes to being critical of itself, philosophy is like the opposite of a fixed doctrine. I also see no way that you can have questioning, arguing etc about any subject as philosophical as rationality/reason itself, which is not philosophical in at least a broad sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Rick's argument that if philosophy is 'by definition' rational, then questions about rationality are 'by definition' not philosophical questions is apparently of the form if X is by definition Y then questions about Y are by definition not Xish questions which I find puzzling. Can Rick parse this in a way that it is clearly a logical truth? Can Rick give some other examples of arguments of this form? Does he mean (a) If maths is by definition numerical then numerical qustions are by definition not mathematical questions or (b) If music is (by definition) an art then questions about art are (by defintion) not musical questions. or (c) If Biology is (by definition) a science then scientific questions are (by definition) not biological questions. Sorry, I just cannot see how the preceeding three sentences are necessarily true. Perhaps I am just a bit thick, innitPhilogo (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

We are not trying to stipulate a "true" definition of philosophy (whatever that would be). This is an encyclopedia, not an essay in metaphilosophy. As such, the lede needs to contain a well-sourced explanation of how the word "philosophy" is used. Heidegger and Nietzsche are partisan primary sources, and as such don't fit Wikipedia policies for preferred sources: just as it would be wildly inappropriate to cite L. Ron Hubbard in the lede paragraph for an article on psychology, or Young Earth creationism in the lede of an article on cosmology. An encyclopedia article does not need to reflect all views, and the view that rationality is optional is a fringe view. WP:FRINGE 271828182 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this is the right explanation of the problem. If Nietzsche and Heidegger said something clearly and agreed on it, it would be very notable and we could consider it. Comparing them to L Ron Hubbard is just plain weird. Fact is that to distill the words we are talking about from Nietzsche and Heidegger requires a lot of creativity and is not uncontroversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew here. Part of the problem is that people confuse rational with empirical and forget about concepts such as coherence and abduction. Rational is a broad church with many houses, but its opposite is irrational which has no place in philosophy, and never has. --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't know if this helps, but one complexity to this is though that it is possible to have a rational argument defending not being rational. I think this type of rational argument, found in Rousseau and Nietzsche, is what is causing confusion. Thing is that both these gentlemen knew they were being rational about being irrational, and could not avoid that because they were philosophers. And the problem, they realized, was also a problem for non-philosophers. All mdoern people are basically brought up rationally. Their questions were about whether this is really good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Snowded. Every time I see your name, I think, "Where are the Snowdeds of yesteryear?"

To answer Philogo's question, I'll try to be more clear. If philosophy is by definition rational, then a person, usually considered a philosopher, who argues irrationally, as in "The word that can be spoken is not the true word," is not "really" a philosopher. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rick: That's quite different to if philosophy is 'by definition' rational, then questions about rationality are 'by definition' not philosophical questions and seems to be of the form If by definition doing X is doing Y then if Z is doing not-Y then Z is not doing X (As in If running is by definition moving quickly then if Z moving un-quickly then Z is not running.). However I am sure you would agree it does allow the possibility of e.g. somebody arguing rationally (not necessarily correctly) that arguing rationally does not necessarly result in significant truth (easy e.g. valid but unsound argument). Wittgenstein seems to argue thus in Tractatus LP. Philogo (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on this matter: the current lede is defining philosophy in terms of its use of rational methodology. But philosophy, being by its nature reflexive, takes its methodologies also as its subject matter; and in that vein the proposed change to the lede is stating that philosophers sometimes question rational methodologies. But that does not contradict the definition of philosophy in terms of rational methodology, for as Andrew says above, the philosophers who question rational methodologies are doing so using rational methodologies... as opposed to, say, painting abstract art "challenging the hegemony of rationality in the modern world" or something, which would not be a rational method of questioning rationality.

The upshot: the proposed lede is true enough, in spirit anyway, but doesn't serve the "balancing" purpose that its contributor seems motivated by, because it doesn't actually add any kind of qualification to the definition of philosophy. It's sort of a tangential aside about some conclusions in one subject area of philosophy, in a sentence about the methods of philosophy (with the confusion coming about because philosophy takes its methods as one of its subject areas), and as such I don't think it belongs in the lede. But maybe something about this could be elaborated upon in Metaphilosophy? (Which, by the way, I still think needs a summary here {{main}}'d to that article). --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A thought on this: maybe add a phrase like "While the definition and methods of philosophy are themselves subjects of philosophical debate..." to the beginning of the second lede sentence in question.? --Pfhorrest (talk)

That would need to be sourced. Note that the current lede is quite precisely and robustly sourced. 271828182 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing could be easier; that sentence is no more than noting "hey by the way metaphilosophy exists". I'm just feeling out for thoughts on this approach as a resolution to the lengthy debate above which seems to have died out without resolution.

A quick first-page-of-Google source, from the IEP article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, which 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..."

"What is philosophy?" and "How should philosophy be done?" are questions about the definition and methods of philosophy if I've ever heard them, and metaphilosophy is a branch of philosophy, therefore philosophy investigates questions about its own definition and methods. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the phrase "While the definition and methods of philosophy are themselves subjects of philosophical debate..." to the beginning of the second lede sentence would not improve the lede even if sourced.— Philogos (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If metaphilosophy is a main branch of philosophy, and if then are sources to support that, then it should be shown in the article as such. NB according to the article metaphilosophy "Morris Lazerowitz claims to have launched the term around 1940 and apparently has used it in print in 1942[3]." — Philogos (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you all forgotten that this article is not just about Western philosophy...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.213.157 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if philosophy refers to any "deep" wisdom literature or school of thought, which it sometimes can, then yes this article should and does try to touch upon non western philosophy. However the word and concept "philosophy" is basically a western as far as I know, and when used strictly is not intended to simply refer to any deep and wise literature or school of thought.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a topic discussed ad infinitum over the past ten years, but most sources still describe Confucius as a Chinese philosopher. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It takes a mathematician to suggest that something has been going on ad infinitum over a finite period of time (ten years); how does that work Rick?— Philogos (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Roughly the same way saying a Chinese philosopher is not a philosopher works. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean not at all?

LOL. Putting the jokes aside though, can I just check to see that we have a basic agreement that philosophy, like lots of words, has several different definitions? I believe that such situations can be handled with common sense. The strictest sense, whereby philosophy is a rational way of life, but with "nature" as it is experienced as its object (distinguishing it clearly from the pursuit of religion or other traditional lore) definitely needs to be covered. I am aware that there is an argument that this strictest understanding of this definition started in Ancient Greece and is western + Islamic. OTOH, clearly Chinese and Indian and other more sophisticated "Eastern philosophies" are definitely often referred to as philosophy, and definitely touch upon many of the same themes as western philosophy. We must cover them. Whilst amongst broader senses, the very broad ones such such as when the wisdom lore of tribal cultures is called philosophy, are probably only going to get passing mentions if anything.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wisdom and Not

Recently, an editor removed this article from the category "Greek inventions". I reverted, not because I necessarily disagree with the removal, but because I think it should be discussed first. The article makes a claim for the "wisdom literature" of Mesopotamia being philosophy. This claim is based primarily on a single source, the article "Wisdom and Not". One source does not a consensus make. The article "Wisdom and Not" is defensive, beginning with a long analogy, and recognizing that the claim it defends is not generally accepted.

If "wisdom literature" is philosophy, there is a great deal of it, in essentially every culture, from the Hebrews to the American Indians. It usually boils down to a few philosophical nuggets. The wisdom of God passeth human understanding. The days of a man are short, and filled with suffering. When a God or Goddess falls in love with a mortal, it usually ends badly for the mortal.

Is wisdom literature philosophy, or does philosophy require more of a systematic development, with reasoning that goes beyond a simple assertion of what seem obvious principles?

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how we define "philosophy". If we define philosophy as the article defines it, that it is the "study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language", then philosophy has existed among many cultures, since humanity has always pondered these fundamental problems. Even if we exclude the folk philosophers of the Near East, Indian and East Asian philosophies developed independently of the Greeks.

My main concern is with the assertion that the Greeks invented all philosophy, not just Western philosophy, which is a controversial claim. The Mesopotamian source is just one example of a counter-argument, and not the only one. John Plott, in his Global History of Philosophy, argues that philosophy arose out of religion, not just for the Greeks, but for the East Asians and Indians at around the same time, sixth century BC (p. 8). An Epitome of the History of Philosophy by Louis Bautain and Caleb Sprague Henry attributes India, rightfully or not, as the cradle of world philosophy (p. 16). Ben-Ami Scharfstein in his A Comparative History of World Philosophy, discounts Near Eastern philosophies, Egyptian and Mesopotamian, but considers Chinese, Indian, and Greek philosophies to be true philisophical traditions, dating the origins of Indian philosophy to 8th century BC, and Greek and Chinese philosophies to 6th century BC (p. 11).

A common theme becomes clear, world philosophers attribute the origins of philosophy to many different cultures, while classicists do not. By categorizing philosophy as purely a Greek invention, we are making a point of view in favor of the classicists. For the sake of neutrality, and to account for the viewpoints of both classicists and world philosophers, we should not include any category on the invention of philosophy, whether it be Greek, Near Eastern, East Asian, or Indian.--Ninthabout (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good case, with cited sources, though the origin of Indian philosophy is notoriously hard to date, and 8th century BCE seems too early to substantiate. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Scharfstein lists Aruni as the earliest "great philosophers" of Indian philosophy, around 8th century BCE. The date could be early, I can't vouch for it since my knowledge of Hindu philosophy is rudimentary, but that is what he says.--Ninthabout (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Aruni is an interesting character, but it is not clear to me whether he is a historical person or a mythic sage, and his great teaching, "Thou art God" sounds more like wisdom literature than like philosophy. Heinlein used it in Stranger in a Strange Land, but much as I love Heinlein, I'm not convinced that "Thou are God" is philosophy, unless there is some sort of context to back it up. Scharfstein is just one source -- do other sources agree? By the way, Ben-Ami Scharfstein is an interesting writer. Somebody should create a Wikipedia article about him. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All roads lead to rome, or here

Why does every article lead back to philosophy if you click the first link that is not in brackets!!! as: http://www.reddit.com/tb/hgkdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.98.81 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Following the above mentioned phenomenon I have noticed the first few words of the article contain 'problems'. Now what is interesting is that this article is a loop around "Problem -> Answer -> Problem". I suggest someone with the appropriate rights to make this word a link to the relevant article. This would make a beautiful feature that most articles end up in philosophy, which ends up in a loops of problems and answers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanjouty (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This trivia was mentioned by Xkcd recently, and I tried it out. I started at spark plug, as suggested. I clicked the first link in every article that wasn't in parentheses or italics, and I eventually got to this page, as promised. MIND BLOWN. dogman15 (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I began with Eustachian tube. Junip (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I began with Mankada Ravi Varma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.150.36 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I began with Coati.

I began with Cheeseburger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.121.102 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I began with that Icelandic erupting volcano. Philosophy not obscured by the ash cloud! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.164.28 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg Hunter (chosen at random) to philosophy in 25 pages.75.61.137.74 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately now people are adding pointless or unhelpful links to the beginnings of articles to either lead people to Philosophy, or to lead them away. 220.245.167.225 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's sad to hear ... but I imagine that the trick worked independently before people started doing that. Wikipedia naturally has a high frequency of articles that begin with the phrase "In politics" or "In biology" or "In medicine" etc. I imagine that these contextualizing terms are what make the phenomenon work. I started with Typhoid Mary. 159.83.252.233 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, it has to do with how the first sentence of the article puts the subject in context, so we are moving up the category tree, towards the top level subjects. however, XKCD was being deliberately snarky, as of course any path of links will eventually take you through every link (simple Turing algorithm, or some such idea), thus eventually to philosophy. as in "the last place i looked was where i found my car keys". what is fascinating is how quickly this happens. ideally, if we are adequately contextualizing each article on WP, we should reach a top level subject like philosophy in very few clicks. i came close but then veered away, sort of a blind mans walk, then came back. "Human" was the article which in 3 tries i was led to, which then led inexorably to here. so there are key articles that get linked to, for maximum proximity to here. i can see a sort of species wheel with links descending to the center.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.137.74 (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

any path of links will eventually take you through every link
I don’t think this is even feasible. Some links occur only in one article, and, as mentioned below, closed loops may exist. In order for this theory to be true just for this case, the first qualifying link in every article on Wikipedia would have to be unique among all Wikipedia articles—i.e. only one article on the entire site could begin with “In science,” etc. —Frungi (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I began with tinsel. I ran into a pathological loop, though, so I clicked a second link instead of a first, and surely enough, here I am. I think the people above me are on the right path of why this happens: wiki articles tend to begin by casting a topic into a subtier of something else, and philosophy happens to be a major core subject. Also, if people are actually editing wiki to affect this phenomenon either way, I am greatly disheartened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.100.58 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As of 7:51 PM EST, Ernest Hemingway breaks this rule. This will be true until someone edits Ernest Hemingway's page to no longer do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.207.31 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Got here from Charlie Sheen. The path was circuitous enough that I don't think that someone planted a linke to philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.142.28 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that in the end most links will make you pass through science, which will then lead you to here. And philosophy will then make you end up in an infinite loop. --Tampert (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Charlie Sheen it went through noun and taxonomy. I think the cause is that the overview sections of articles place the article in a larger context. The largest context arguably is philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.142.28 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Random article transphobia got here in 33 moves. Future attempters can assume they've reached it if they hit science, mathematics, physics, causality, information, fact, nation, sovereign state... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.157.59 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

http://xefer.com/wikipedia - This links to an application where you type in the name of a wikipedia page and it shows you how you can reach philosophy from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.185 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone messed with the article!!! Why does "existence" the first link on the philosophy page, go to "metaphysics" now? Now it goes philosophy->metaphysics->philosophy, whereas there used to be a much bigger loop that included physiology, math, fact, science, etc.... all way better topics than philosophy i might add. anyways, someone should switch it back! the article hasn't been rewritten someone just F'ed up the link to point to the wrong page ... Mike Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.166.195 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike! I made that change, but the reason was to improve the article, not to have an effect on the Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy game. Did you read the section I added to Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy titled "Gaming the System?" If you haven't, please take a moment now and read it. It is at ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Get_to_Philosophy#Gaming_The_System ).

When the article says "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems such as those connected with existence...", the question is, what do the reliable sources cited in the article mean by "existence"? The Wikipedia article on Existence is not what the sources are talking about. The sources are talking about the kind of "existence" that is discussed in metaphysics.

As for the length of the loop, as I explained when I wrote the "Gaming the System" section, if we allow such considerations to tale precedence, cheating at GtP becomes really, really easy. Just create a 100-link loop yourself, and then change all the top ten chains into 1-link chains. No, we have to make each Wikipedia article to be as high a quality as possible rather than whatever serves the GtP game. The current version of Philosophy is written to achieve that goal. Reducing the opportunity for vandalism by GtP players is a secondary goal. As always with Wikipedia, I am completely open to any arguments that I may be wrong on this, so please keep up the discussion. Thanks! (And BTW, please sign your posts by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.) Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

reverted first sentence to version as of 15:15 MAy 25th 2011 by vSmith: remove unnecessary links.) — Philogos (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing why you think a controversial edit should be made, not for simply announcing that you made it. User 98.206.166.195 dis the correct thing by explaining why he thinks the article should be a certain way (and I will respond to him as soon as I am finished with this). The key concept here is to discuss controversial or disputed changes and to seek consensus. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus for details. Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede has been extensively discussed (almost ad nauseam), so its prior state is the consensus, and reverting back to that consensus (as Philogo did) is the more defensible edit. 271828182 (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am all for following consensus where it exists. Could you give me some diffs where I could find these prior discussions about which links should be in the lead? Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

and its worth remembering that WP:BRD also applies. If a change is disputed, then it is reverted and discussed. The archives contain many a discussion on the lede. The basic issue with pipelinks is that they make assumptions about how a field is defined. So, for example it is plain wrong to link "reason" to logic, as logic is one aspect of that but not all of it. Similarly questions of existence are not confined to metaphysics.--Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Guy, there is a search box on this talk page which should be helpful to find old discussions in the archives of this talk page. I would suggest writing a draft lead here on the talk page instead of changing it directly. For better or worse, when trying to change the opening lines of a much-read article like this one you should expect that it will take some time and discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Good advice. I just looked and noted which is the stable version:

"Philosophy" links: Revision as of 17:41, 2 July 2008 by 271828182

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=historysubmit&diff=223120562&oldid=222757938

Stable for 8 days.

No links: Revision as of 21:41, 10 July 2008 by Philogo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=historysubmit&diff=224892425&oldid=224868755

Stable for nearly 3 years

"Literal" links: Revision as of 01:07, 26 May 2011 by Nlaporte

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=historysubmit&diff=430939672&oldid=430857987

Stable for 4 days.

Philosophy links: Revision as of 16:18, 30 May 2011 by Guymacon

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=historysubmit&diff=431673838&oldid=431560382

Stable for 6 days.

No links: Revision as of 22:17, 5 June 2011 by Philogo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=historysubmit&diff=432752751&oldid=432600146

From the above I see a clear consensus for no links (it's also interesting that I was not the first to think of putting in the "Philosophy" links (Metaphysics, etc. - I came up with that independently). Unless someone speaks up with evidence that the consensus has changed, I am going to withdraw my suggested edits and go along with the consensus. Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On 5 June 2011 an anon editor complained "Someone messed with the article!!!" regarding wiki-links in the first sentence. I reviewed the history and discovered that the lede (which has been stable for several years (three is it?) was changed by the addition of links, and these links were then changed to other links etc etc. I simply reverted to the original linkless version. I subseqeuntly noticed that someone had wiki-linked the words "Philosophy" and "Greek" in the lede. From time to time some editors are moved to wiki-link any words in an article which have corresponding articles. I not quite sure why they are so moved, but if the links are pointless and superfluous it is best to simply de-wickify them. There is an understanding for this article that no changes should be made to the lede without prior discussion on the talk page, and any changes to to the lede without such prior disussion are reverted pending a discussion to reach a consensus. If any editors wishes to suggest changes to the lede just state your suggestion with reasons at the BOTTOM of this talk page. — Philogos (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

Isn't phylosophy of mind a division of metaphysics?--Anuclanus (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's is not normally treated as such.— Philogos (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is, but analytic philosophers consider metaphysics meaningless. TFD (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean it is (a) a division of metaphysics (b) normally treated as such?— Philogos (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) Yes, absolutely (it's the most meta- of metaphysics);

(b) No, at least not in analytic-dominated departments in the English-speaking world. That has less to do with the meaning of the term metaphysics and more to do with cultural distaste for it after Wittgenstein et al. (What's the opposite of 'buzzword'? 'Pariahnym'?) — LlywelynII 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are asking in the wrong place. Tryy Talk:Philosophy of mind and/or Talk:Metaphysics. Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's unhelpful. If it's discussed on this page, it's worth discussing here. — LlywelynII 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article Philosophy." are you having trouble understanding? If you have a specific suggestion for improving the Philosophy article, it's worth discussing here. Otherwise, not. Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the simple answer is no. Of course all types of philosophy bounce off each other, but to the extent they are normally broken into pieces, metaphysics and philosophy of mind are not the same thing. Please see the two articles about those subjects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics#History says, "other problems considered metaphysical for centuries are now typically subjects of their own separate regions in philosophy, such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, philosophy of perception, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science" (my emphasis). The mind-body problem is part of metaphysics, but analysts reject metaphysics and therefore see it as a different branch. TFD (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would explain it differently, but the result is the same I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion about this article and how it might be improved? NB This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article Philosophy. Please direct general discussion about philosophy articles and categories to WikiProject Philosophy. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.Italic text— Philogos (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article lists both metaphysics and philosophy of mind as Branches of philosophy. I do not see a problem with this. TFD (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to classify it as such. The mind-matter question is a metaphysical question. However I would not consider philosophy of mind to be a "branch" but rather a "field."Greg Bard (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

can you explain diff between field and branch? — Philogos (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone did a complete revert rather than work with it. That is too bad. WP is such an inconsistent patchwork, I thought it would be nice if the Philosophy article could be consistent with everything else in the philosophy department. The distinction between a "branch" and a "field" is really just a way to organize things. The "branches" are those academic areas which can reasonably be considered a part of the vast majority of philosophy departments around the world. Almost all philosophy departments will consider Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Logic, Aesthetics, and Social and political philosophy as sin qua non. I realize that this is not universal (some may drop aesthetics, or one of the others) The prevailing pattern is that these are the major areas of philosophy. "Fields" are merely the next most popular areas, but in the case of Philosophy of law, language, mind, science, and religion; they are very popular, but by no means considered to be sine qua non by very many people. Anything less prolific than that is pretty spotty. This is the way much of WP in the philosophy department is organized. The Philosophy article and its sections really should reflect the organization of things in the rest of WP, i.e. categories, lists, task forces, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC) p.s. I see now that it was you that reverted it philogo. Now that the reasons are stated, rather than just consistent and somewhat obvious given everything else, perhaps we could move forward on a consistent organization.-gb

I suggest you give reasons here BEFORE removing a section from the article, and wait to see whether other editors agree. Meanwhile I have reverted to the status quo to enable such a discussion.

First of all, nothing was removed, it was moved as consistent with the rest of the organization. I am not always going to get on the talk page in a timid manner and then make my edit, as much as you may wish that things are done that way. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

History

The east-west division in the history of philosophy section is completely arbitrary. It implies a relationship between Middle Eastern and Far Eastern philosophies that does not exist. I've reorganized the history section in such a way that it combines the two sections, making it chronologically clearer without significantly altering the content.--Mathematicmajic (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to categorise the history of thought via four main directions and have a fifth category to contain the rest (which is necessarily then subdivided). These four main ones are Ancient Greek thought, Ancient Chinese thought, Ancient Indian thought and Ancient Hebraic thought. I have a certain amount of practical and theoretical interest in all four.John Allsup (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Format

Just a suggestion. Since this article looks like a list of philosophies can we maybe arrange them similar, but not exactly, to the way the Philosophy template organizes the list of philosophies? Specifically, can the "main theories" section be part of more specific sections rather than just being 'main'? Tell me what you think. Neurophysics (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, can we make each branch a separate section? That might be proper due weight, as, for example, two sentences on logic does not seem fit. Neurophysics (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

THe list on the template is simply a navigation aid I don't think it has any special authority. If you have specific proposals make them here. On your second point, this is meant to be a summary article. I don't think that justifies separate sections --Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

position of the etymology section

Amongst the recent diffs I see one proposal of Neurophysics is to move the short etymology section up to the first position after the intro. I find this reasonable. I think the position where it is now is not working well. It is not the sort of information you expect to find after already having worked through a long article, but rather something that should be right near the top.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hpaige422, 3 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First sentence, add mathematics to list of things that are evaluated.

Hpaige422 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Mathematics isn't one of the terms listed in the sources, and doesn't add anything to the article. — Bility (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent re-organization of "History" sections

I notice some editor(s) have hamhandedly integrated the history sections with the previous "Geographical" sections of the article. Since the geographical sections were very poorly written (i.e., terribly sourced, tendentiously written, riddled with dubious claims, huge WP:UNDUE problems), this has the net effect of seriously degrading the quality of a half-decent section of the article. Can we revert to the prior organization, or substantially rewrite the entire section to repair these huge problems? To put it simply: if you open almost any reference book on philosophy, or encyclopedia article on philosophy, you will see in the corresponding "history" section a far, far better treatment than the eyesore this article is currently burdened with. And such treatments will be substantially closer to the previous "history of western philosophy" section than the current revision. 271828182 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you give diffs which show the nett differences you mean so we can discuss?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at a previous version, really: [5] -- I chose that one at random. Compare it with the current version, which is barely coherent. Or, as I suggested, compare it to virtually any "history" section of a competent encyclopedia article or reference source on philosophy. The "non-western" sections have always been rubbish, and this just embeds the rubbish front and center. 271828182 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The structure of the previous revision didn't make much sense, grouping Western philosophies chronologically, while non-Western philosophies (grouped in the vague category of "Eastern Philosophy") were organized geographically. What's wrong with organizing Western philosophy by geography (Greek philosophy, American philosophy, French philosophy), or non-Western philosophies by chronology? Your argument that the non-Western sections need improvement is a valid one, but the remedy should be the improvement and expansion of sections that need it.--Philosopherofscience (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the sections that were brought up. Hopefully, this is no longer a problem.--Philosopherofscience (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first sentence "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" should contain links to the subjects "existence", "knowledge", etc.

Goldace (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. :) I've linked them to ontology and epistemology, as I thought it might be good to go straight to the respective fields. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Structuralism and Post-structuralism

"Structuralists believed they could analyze systems from an external, objective standing, for example, but the poststructuralists argued that this is incorrect, that one cannot transcend structures and thus analysis is itself determined by what it examines, while the distinction between the signifier and signified was treated as crystalline by structuralists, poststructuralists asserted that every attempt to grasp the signified results in more signifiers, so meaning is always in a state of being deferred, making an ultimate interpretation impossible."

This paragraph is full of incoherent, nonsensical mumbo jumbo. It needs to be simplified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk • contribs) 2011-11-18T20:55:06

It's neither incoherent nor nonsensical. It is, however, filled with specialist language meaningful only to those who already know the subject to some degree, or to which meaning can be inferred by people familiar with similar theories in other disciplines. Perhaps it can be clarified, use of technical language is always a difficult question. SamBC(talk) 12:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Format

It is a weight issue that one sentence is given to logic while other less significant topics are given whole paragraphs. Also, right now the moral and political philosophy has a whole section for itself. To address both, can we have one section called branches and have as subsections things like logic, aesthetics and move moral and political philosophy here since there is no particular reason to section off this one branch. Neurophysics (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The subsections in the “Main theories” section, realism and nominalism, rationalism and empiricism, and skepticism, would be better if incorporated into other sections. There is little to define what makes a theory “main” and there are a lot of theories out there. For the remaining subsections like pragmatism and the analytic tradition, etc, which cover philosophy more broadly, we could change the title to something like “Major schools” or “Major traditions” instead. Neurophysics (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A nice definition of philosophy.

I came across this reading Will and Ariel Durant's The Age of Voltaire, p. 605.

"By philosopher we shall mean anyone who tries to arrive at reasoned opinions on any subject whatever as seen in a large perspective."

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That is the broadest definition, but realistically there needs to be a continuation which says that it especially refers to... I think this has always been a challenge. Just for example, would the above not apply to the thinking of a skilled craftsman solving a problem, or to religious contemplations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly a philosophy of religion. And I would also suggest a philosophy of craftsmanship would not be entirely out of the question. Of course, thinking about one particular religion or craft would probably miss the big picture. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is not need to debate the logic of whether, for example, philosophy of religion is religion, like a priest practices. (I think not.) The bigger question is whether the term philosophy is generally understood to include religion and the knowledge of a craftsman.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think any defn. of philosophy that includes natural science is not right for a brief summary of the discipline. That's an historically accurate view--natural philosophy--but out of step with how the term is really used today. Philosophers study the methods of science, but no longer arrive at "reasoned opinions on [the] subject". The qualifier about a "large perspective" isn't clear enough to make it meaningful. But if we're not talking about re-working the lede then it's a good quote that merits a place in the article! I still like "philosophy is the study of its own history." JJL (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How about, "Philosophy is the study of things which, if they were true, would be science." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the term philosophy, taken strictly in the recent way that excludes "science", a word people confuse with technology, almost becomes meaningless. I am not saying that this problem gives an entirely wrong impression. But I think to explain what the word philosophy means in books where it is found, we need to represent both of the two extreme positions, without relying souly on either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not use the simple, clear, and concise Prof ACGrayling definition of philosophy: that it is enquiry - critical, reflective enquiry.

Or more fully...

Philosophy has been the driving force of progress and change throughout the history of our western culture - because philosophy is enquiry – critical, reflective enquiry. And it has turned into the natural sciences, and the empirical social sciences. It continues as part of this great conversation that we have to have, about how we should live and how we should organise our society. Philosophy is vital.

Most of this is descriptive in a more poetic way. The simple clear concise part is critical, reflective enquiry. This is not that different in spirit to any of the versions we have. One key difference is that it does not use the word rational. I think we are best to use the word rational because being critical and being reflective is also what lawyers and priests do. And this brings us to the bigger question we keep confronting is what to say, if anything, about what type of subject matter philosophy covers. The above proposal touches the same problem where it says that "it has turned into the natural sciences, and the empirical social sciences". But using those words in the first sentence would raise more questions than they would answer. (If philosophy turned into other things, then why is there still philosophy.) For a definition what we need is some description of what it is which unites all the different things called philosophy. Philosophy itself pushes rational critical thinking as far as it can. I would say that very lack of limits is what makes it what it is as distinct from technological science, religious thinking, legal thinking etc. You could almost say that whenever ANY type of critical thinking burst out of its normal boundaries, we call it philosophical. So if we define it too strictly in terms of subject matter then we are giving a distorted account. What we currently do, by mentioning examples of subjects it handles, without making them seem definitive, is probably the simplest and best we can do until someone comes up with a better proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I see the point you make and I just have to agree. The best we can do as of now is mention examples of subjects it handles because I cannot imagine all of us agreeing to a single definition on such a topic. That said, can’t this be ameliorated by suggesting the few, broad perspectives? I was thinking something like this which you could happily improve on;

Philosophy is the rational study of subjects that broadly includes existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language. These topics are sometimes defined by their general and fundamental nature (Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans). They are sometimes defined as any subjects where factual certainties cannot easily be established by scientific or other means (Columbia). Philosophy is also more broadly defined as including any critical, reflective enquiry (Prof ACGrayling).

I tried to make the last sentence allude to what I think Rick Norwood and others were suggesting. Is that right? Neurophysics (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this discussion seems a bit beside the point. This is not a forum for discussing how to define philosophy -- WP:FORUM. What editors think philosophy is doesn't matter. The article must reflect the best scholarly consensus, as reflected in reliable secondary sources -- WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That is what the current lede does. The Durants' 50-year-old popular books are not even close to being the sort of reliable secondary sources WP policy enjoins us to use. Grayling's poetic short definition likewise -- Grayling is already cited as a source for the current lede, from a scholarly reference source. 271828182 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am back. I could agree that those sources could be unreliable but I believe atleast this should be the second sentence in the lead, “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.These topics are sometimes defined as those where factual certainties are not easily established by scientific or other means.” This was discussed by Columbia Encyclopedia in the ‘distinguishing characteristics’ section.[6] As of now, nothing is mentioned suggesting how philosophy would include areas in natural philosophy if it was not for science. Neurophysics (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this. We should wait for the reactions of others perhaps, given previous discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

More feedback please. Neurophysics (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's start a conversation! Neurophysics (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Gee, should I just change it then? Neurophysics (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No. There's not clearly consensus for it. JJL (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and asking for a consensus is not meant to be a way of choosing an edit without presenting an argument. There needs to be some rational reason not to make this edit if we are going to argue against it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I just happened to be reading this. I do not say we should use it here as such but I think it shows a very major philosopher agreeing with this point that philosophy deals with the non-obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is the task of philosophy to discover what is common even in what is different. According to Plato, the task of the philosophical dialectician is "to learn to see things together in respect of the one."
— Hans Georg Gadamer, The Relevance of the Beautiful and other essays (Walker trans.), 1986, p.12, citing Plato's Phaedrus 265d

The business from the Columbia Encyclopedia "distinguishing characteristics" sub-section is unhelpful, as it is based on a sharp distinction between "fact" and "theory" that is just the sort of thing considered in philosophy. In any case, a general encyclopedia article is an inferior source compared to scholarship from philosophy itself. All that is needed to distinguish philosophy from science narrowly considered is already in the definition, with the words "general and fundamental" and the list of specific problems. 271828182 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair comment, but it also makes it fairly clear that this is basically a wording issue and not a sourcing issue. I guess the question that has been raised is therefore something like whether the distinction between philosophy and science is being made clear enough. For example, if we say that the words "general and fundamental" and so on are what makes the difference, should we add the words "as opposed to science" (just to make a simple solution which is not a neat one). I have no strong position about it, but I do understand the question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a sourcing issue, as none of the current sources draw a sharp distinction between science and philosophy. As I indirectly pointed out, asserting such a distinction would violate NPOV. 271828182 (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But this response gives a different impression than your previous one. I agree that an artificially sharp distinction is not called for, but the two words refer to different things. Saying that there is a difference, does not mean that one is saying that the difference is a "sharp distinction". You however seem to be opposed to any clear statement that the words refer to different things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue with Columbia as a source. Scholarship from philosophy would have been asked to write it anyway. Even if other sources should be given priority over it, what from other sources goes against it? Philosophy and science, however similar, are still two different things and this goes someway to explain this issue that many readers would find relevant. I added the history of the term in the etymology section, including some of the info below. I thought it would be less contentious as having the second sentence in the lead. But simply whitewashing this issue is a disservice to the readers. Neurophysics (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully understanding Newton means avoiding anachronistically substituting our conception of philosophy in the twenty-first century for what the early moderns called 'natural philosophy'. To be sure, the latter includes much that we now call 'science', and yet it clearly includes much else besides.[7]

Thus spake the Columbia Encyclopedia: "Philosophy differs from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available." Wholly?? "Facts as such"?? This is amateurism worthy of, well, Wikipedia. I can't take it seriously, and so severely doubt Neurophysic's faith that it was written by a scholar in philosophy (or science). Lancaster, I do not deny there is a difference. However, the difference is a muddy and contentious one, and so need not darken the door of this poor article. Philosophy differs from cheese, but there is no need to say all the things philosophy differs from, let alone in the lede. And invoking the atrociously ham-fisted Columbia Encyclopedia as a reliable source is a joke. 271828182 (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the discussion arises from the fact that any definition of philosophy will tend to contains elements which make it look similar to a definition of science?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@ 271828182, what you are arguing is besides the point. Columbia does not become an unreliable source only because an editor disagrees with its content. The reason science should be treated differently from cheese is because, as I mentioned, it is a comparison many readers would find relevant (unlike cheese) and because, as you mentioned, the comparison is “muddy and contentious” (once again, unlike cheese). As I mentioned, this “goes someway to explain” the issue because being contentious and muddy was never a reason to not mention material and even if the article is poor, not mentioning relevant issues does not improve it. Neurophysics (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a sourcing issue, except in terms of WP:DUE weight. It is basically a wording decision. It is easy to find sources on this, and indeed we all agree that the sources distinguish science and philosophy, but just because something appears in an acceptable source does not mean we have to use it. I do think that if we must put words in about this then 271828182's concern is a reasonable one: we must not make the distinction between the two things more sharp than consensus would accept, even if we can find sources that do. The first sentences should be super neutral an very general. They should not say anything which is debatable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and it is fair that the first sentence should not state something of debate. However, for this proposed second sentence, can other sources be found that shows that Columbia’s distinction is “sharp”? And just to note, this sentence says ‘sometimes’. This makes it a true sentence and does not state it as if it is universally accepted. Neurophysics (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

am still waiting. Neurophysics (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Busy, sorry. Weaseling with a "sometimes" can justify inserting any controversial, POV claim for which you can find at one source. The Columbia is quite sharp -- just read it. 271828182 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that POV can be abused with "sometimes" but it does not seem to be the case here. Neurophysics (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 271828182 on the Columbia definition. The Oxford companion says that most definitions of philosophy are fairly controversial in part because of the various historical changes as to what is included or not. It endorse the simple "Philosophy is thinking about thinking". It also provides a more detailed one which it says is uncontroversially comprehensive namely "..philosophy is rationally critical thinking, or a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology and theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value)." That is closer to the last agreement we made and is not a comical trivialisation of both science and philosophy. --Snowded ^TALK 16:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The point about the historical changes in the meaning and (effective) domain of philosophy is important. There was a time when virtually anyone doing physics would have been labeled a philosopher but that field has long since branched out on its own, leaving philosophers to discuss what physics is, how it should be done, what can be known by its methods, etc., but they are not typically doing physics per se. The current lede, and the longer quote above, both give a reader some basic notion of what a 21st century philosopher might spend his or her working days doing. The flowery definitions are amusing and pleasing to those with some idea what philosophy is but vacuous for the rest. For better or worse, a list of the major areas (in some format) is desirable. JJL (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So maybe use the above definition, then expand the lede with the historical development, the split with the continental tradition and parallel developments outside of the west and interactions between?--Snowded ^TALK 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, as does leaving it as it is or Rick Norwood's generally similar suggestion below. What I don't want is a witty quote that makes sense only to those who are already in the know. JJL (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My vote is for Neurophysics's suggestion, which seems the least controversial: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." In short, let's leave the article as it is, unless something clearly better comes along. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I am confused, I thought Neurophysics was going for the Columbia one --Snowded ^TALK 15:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going back to his post of 12:06, 22 November 2011, where he says that that should at least be the second sentence of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So that is not leaving things as they are is it? And it leaves open including ".. are sometimes defined as those where factual certainties are not easily established by scientific or other means" which is plain wrong --Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)--Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I was only commenting on the first sentence of the lead. I agree that the second sentence of the lead is wrong, and will open another thread below for that discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you all feel that way about the proposed sentence. I guess the consensus is clear now. Neurophysics (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

inconsistency between articles

in the article Philosophy right here, it states that the re are four main branches of study called metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. however, in the Epistemology article, near the bottom of the introduction it says "Epistemology (how we know things) is combined with ontology (what things exist) to constitute the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. The other three branches of philosophy are ethics (which attempts to understand and prescribe conduct), politics (which attempts to describe how we should interact with one another), and aesthetics (which discusses questions of beauty and taste)."

this one implies that the four main branches of study are called metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

are these two articles contradicting each other? Ghostwork (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed most of that paragraph, which was unsourced, served no role in introducing the subject of the article, and is dubious besides. Thanks for flagging that. 271828182 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead.

"These topics are sometimes defined as those where factual certainties are not easily established by scientific or other means.[3]"

This sentence is not in any way supported by the reference given, and should be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence has been cut. It should never have been added, as it was (1) superfluous, (2) implied a distinction sharper than can be justified, and (3) was poorly sourced. (1) The existing lede adequately covers the difference between philosophy and the sciences by implication: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." The sciences do not study general and fundamental problems (especially those listed), and the omission of experiment from the second sentence draws the line as easily as we need. (2) The distinction between science and philosophy is not, as the Columbia source essentially suggests, that science deals in facts and philosophy doesn't. This draws upon a concept of "fact" which is extremely unclear and is baldfaced false about "science", which deals in theories and models all the time. (3) The Columbia article is anonymously written, and written for a general encyclopedia. That is not the level of reliable sourcing Wikipedia policy prefers. 271828182 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Links in lead

The link for existence in the lead should really go to existence. Only makes sense, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler12333 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

An RM of interest: the computer game called "Eidos"

Editors may be interested in this requested move. Noetica^Tea? 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Big problem ?!

To much a intelligent people hast problem has being wise . (my opinion, I am not bookworm) This is a big problem in today world .

sry my bad english :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckres (talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition of Metaphysics is hard to understand

The section on Metaphysics opens with "Metaphysics is the study of of reality, such as those including existence, the relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties, events and causation."

This sentence is ungrammatical (...of of...), and unclear: I do not understand what "those" in "such as those including existence" is referring to.

Jalanb (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume the text here was corrupted by inattentive editors. I have offered a good-enough fix; thanks for calling attention to this. 271828182 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Science, its philosophy and a potential circularity

The page states: Philosophy is the rational[1] study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.

I would suggest that the study of what can be established easily scientifically falls within the philosophy of science and the study of what can be established by simple observation is necessarily a branch of philosophy of its own (though I don't know if it has a name, nor if it has been formally studied). Maybe the page needs refinement and clarification such that it clearly answers the question: what is philosophy in a way that includes all its branches yet excludes areas of thought that are not generally considered philosophy.John Allsup (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing your point but what can be established scientifically or by simple observation might indeed be wrong and might indeed in turn be studied philosophically. But that is a philosophical study of science, or of observation. The science and the observation are still separable from the study of them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the lede to the last stable wording, which did not state "Philosophy is the rational[1] study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation."— Philogos (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Philogo. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@John Allsup, I do not think what can be established scientifically is considered the philosophy of science. As the Columbia Encyclopedia citation states, "philosophy still considers the methods (as opposed to the materials) of science as its province". Studying about science is considered a philosophy. I agree that there needs to be refinement and clarification of what is philosophy rather than give example of some of its topics. The description of philosophy in the lead paragraph, using Columbia, would include those topics where, using available reasoning techniques, there can still be little agreement, such as morality and beauty, and excludes such topics as biology and chemistry whose reasoning methods, namely science, are widely accepted. Thus, as I cited, they were considered philosophies before use of the scientific method. Neurophysics (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Philogo and Rick. Also I think you are in danger of forgetting the role of science in modern philosophy, the increasing integration between cognitive science and philosophy of the mind etc. etc. Whatever you need agreement on the talk page before making major changes. --Snowded ^TALK 09:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As was mentioned before, there needs to be refinement and clarification of “what is philosophy in a way that includes all its branches yet excludes areas of thought that are not generally considered philosophy.” As of now, the first sentence calls it the study of general and fundamental problems. That works fine for things like existence or logic but how is morality, aesthetics or, as written now, language anymore fundamental or general than physics? I thought Columbia’s descriptions about philosophy which concern the difficulty in establishing certainties captures both general, fundamental problems as well as not so general problems that are still hard to agree upon like ethics and beauty. @ Snowded, cognitive science may well integrate into philosophy of the mind as nobody required any disciplines to be black and white. The MRI and stuff are fully scientific and the great rest of it is still speculation and philosophy is sometimes defined as studying by “speculative rather than observational means.”[8] Perhaps, one day, like natural philosophies, better technology would make philosophy of the mind to not be considered a philosophy anymore. Neurophysics (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think you are creating a false dichotomy or two there --Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I am in agreement with Snowded. It is not possible to understand what philosophy is from the viewpoint of science, because the separation of science and philosophy is itself a particular philosophical position. Philosophy is in a sense a type of rational enterprise which goes beyond whatever the normal limits of rational questioning are. Philosophy and science do TODAY have a practical distinction because science is common. On the other hand it would be easy to argue that this is partly just a change in word meaning whereby people are NOT remembering the distinction between technology and science in its purest sense, which is something much closer to philosophy. Anyway, just from simple point of view of historical facts, the term science was certainly not "coined to refer to the reasoning known as the scientific method" and the answers.com ref given also does not say this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Some claim that philosophy is at an end because its questions will never be answered and, perhaps, should never have been asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.15.163 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy is a study much like psychology or astrology. The main point of philosophy in itself is to never have a final solution, much unlike psychology or astrology. However, it has numerous branches such as stoicism, epistemology, and Hellenistic philosophy. These can all be considered "solutions" to the main quandary posed by philosophy which is a search for answers to problems, basic problems. Every philosopher has a different solution and many people can agree on the same solution. Just because a search for the answer is difficult it does not mean that a question should be left unasked. I believe every searcher has an answer of his or her own to the all-consuming study that is philosophy. Eeshprince (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Branches

Just for the record, I believe my opposition should have to bring this up on the talk page as explained. But, let’s stay civil. The lead issue argument is understandable, but this is pushing it little too far. A previous statement in that section similarly read, "In addition, a range of disciplines have emerged to address areas that historically were the subjects of philosophy. These include anthropology, psychology, and physics." I did not think it was a matter of controversy that other fields were considered part of philosophy, as the sources said. Why are you so determined to whitewash this from the article? Neurophysics (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to use the talk page rather than editing the article directly using a source that was not fully accepted by other editors. It not as simple as you edit implies. Anthropology and biology for example have a massive overlap and that includes aspects of psychology which are starting to fuse again with Philosophy of Mind and Neuro-science. Including some reference to the history, in that section is appropriate. I'm not sure it is in branches however. Whatever, given that you previous changes were contested you should really use the talk page to propose changes first --Snowded ^TALK 05:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" is a loaded term. The two sentences you added are (1) vaguely and clumsily written, and (2) poorly sourced. E.g., the first sentence claims that "the field covered by philosophy has decreased over time". But that is (1) a spatialization or quantification that is too vague to understand as being straightforwardly verifiable, and (2) is not at all supported by the reference, which talks about natural philosophy not being the same as the current usage of "philosophy", and makes no reference to a decrease in the range of philosophy. Saying that natural philosophy included a lot of what we call science and also a lot of other things carries no implication about philosophy in general. The second sentence refers generally to the Columbia Encyclopedia entry, which, as I've pointed out above, is not a reliable source -- it is not a specialist secondary source (such as an encyclopedia of philosophy, by philosophers -- unlike the sources in the lede, e.g.), we have no indication of who wrote it, or the author's (authors' [?]) expertise in philosophy. It is essentially a link to answers.com, precisely the sort of sourcing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. It also makes an uncritical appeal to a notion of "fact" that is somehow anterior to, or perhaps opposed to, philosophy, which is extremely dubious and a POV violation (as I explained before). So the article is better off without those edits. As for the general claim that other disciplines have emerged to occupy formerly philosophical topics: (1) this is not an article about the emergence of anthropology, or psychology, or physics (and why those three in particular anyway?), so the comment is extraneous. (2) It is not at all clear how philosophy, once upon a time, included physics. Was Anaxagoras doing the same thing as Newton? As Dirac? In what sense? And did these sciences "emerge" from philosophy, or from other sciences, or from common sense observation? Fechner and Helmholtz, e.g., did not seek to found psychology out of philosophy -- their models and methods were explicitly derived from physics. I know professors and philosophers sometimes speak of sciences "emerging" or spinning off or maturing from philosophy (J.L. Austin says something like this somewhere). But this notion has always seemed rather facile and short on detailed historical genealogy. In any event, the edits and sources given don't cut it. 271828182 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Again, Columbia does not become unreliable because you disagree with it about the notion of “fact” or whatever. The other source that says what is now “science” was a part of philosophy is from Stanford, [9]. Another editor can add in what the sources say if the issue is me adding my slants. Also, can we get some more opinions here, I am sure someone else notices this is a little weird. Neurophysics (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use indenting it makes things easier to follow. We have discussed the nature of the Columbia source before, and the same point is not repeated in other edited encyclopaedias etc. You are also missing the point about the fact that some of this is coming back together at the moment. The position you are adopting is one held by philosophers, but it is not a consensus opinion so we need to be careful about how we use it, and where it is used if at all. I think some note in the History section has value, but only there. --Snowded ^TALK 16:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial to say that at an early stage in Greece many thinkers on many subjects would've been grouped together under a single heading that would effectively mean, if not literally be, philosopher, but it gets murkier when you look at any particular case. Some areas grew out of philosophy and others were pulled out to merge with other well-formed ideas and become a new discipline, and it greatly oversimplifies the matter to view them as having evolved soley from philosophy. Nonetheless I have a fair amount of sympathy for your viewpoint but would like to see any such statement very well-sourced--we risk the navel-gazing effect of thinking the field of interest to us here, philosophy, is so very special. It undeniably is, but quality sources provide a check on aggrandizement. Is there a physics/psych./anthro. text that describes its field as being purely an offshoot of phil., at least at the origin? I suspect they may take a broader view. I also wonder if natural philosophy may have acquired early on a meaning like science and if it's too simple to say natural phil. is (originally) a subset of phil. rather than a case of a similar term being used. (I honestly don't know.) Where are the strong secondary sources saying physics, e.g., grew (only) out pf phil.? JJL (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Neurophysics, you seem to have missed what I actually said. Your edit is not supported by what the SEP source says. Your edit says, essentially, that philosophy has shrunk as new sciences have emerged from it. But the SEP article says "Fully understanding Newton means avoiding anachronistically substituting our conception of philosophy in the twenty-first century for what the early moderns called 'natural philosophy'. To be sure, the latter includes much that we now call 'science', and yet it clearly includes much else besides." As I said, this says nothing about philosophy shrinking, or physics emerging out of philosophy. It merely notes, rather like an Euler diagram, that "natural philosophy" is not the same as "philosophy" or "science". 271828182 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Its me again. I cannot seem to convince anybody but if I only say “natural philosophy used to be considered a branch of philosophy” would you then not take it down? Neurophysics (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Main Branches - Political Philosophy

Political philosophy (politics) ought to be reported as a main branch. Currently section 2.4 is titled: Moral and political philosophy (with main article links for both), the lede sentence for the branches section doesn't mention politics, and politics is absent from the template listing of branches.

I looked through the talk page revisions of the article for when the change was made in the article and found no discussion of this demotion within the article. Is it really the intention to suggest to encyclopedia readers that in summary, political philosophy is not a *main* branch? --Karbinski (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Moral and political philosophy are very inter-twined, but they are certainly also two distinct terms, so either way is good for me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg)

This is (a) Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fun fact

Did you know if you click the first link in any Wikipedia article, and click the first links after that, eventually you will always end up on this page? 204.184.214.55 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This actually is an interesting observation and it makes sense. When you state that "X is a type of Y," what you are saying is that Y is an abstraction of X. If you keep clicking thereby taking this process to its logical conclusion, you will inevitably end up in the philosophy department and therefore to the philosophy article. Greg Bard (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be fun if true.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect that it is universally true, but it should be, and it is a good indication of appropriate linking.Greg Bard (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Er...yeah, what he said. ^^^ 204.184.214.55 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't work on "language" - anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.100.247 (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

False. Mathematics doesn't lead here. Nor do many things that one would expect. Not even logic does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.195.162 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Most of the time they do lead back here because most articles start with "In blah, <article names> is..." and blah is the more general field. You are quite right that mathmatics is caught in it's own loop:

Mathmatics, quantity, property, logic, principles, law, system, elements, mathmatics

Still a fun fact that "most" end up back here. Cavebear42 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

any sort of disproof of the "all roads lead to philosophy" theory are outdated. I just checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.6.85 (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It still seems to be holding 68.38.133.115 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, the original claim is that the first link that is neither italicized nor with within parenthesis is the one to followed. This drastically opens up the pathways to glorious inevitable philosophy. 216.221.94.198 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many loops that won't get you anywhere near philosophy. Joja lozzo 18:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to back that up; I haven't been able to disprove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.28.133.40 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Count of Monte Cristo leads directly to the author's page which leads directly to The Count of Monte Cristo. My friends and I were stunned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.155.11 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Has to be the first non-italicized link outside parentheses. Tested it recently, starting variously with "Papal States" (which took me through Mathematics), "Hanuman", and "SKS". All of them worked. Also, XKCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.80.230 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics leads nearly directly here, if you follow the 'non-italicized, outside of paranthesis' rule. I haven't found an article that doesn't lead here, following the rule. Ericloewe (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any paths that don't lead to Philosophy were deliberately manipulated to spite the xkcd strip on the subject. 216.150.131.207 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange...

No matter which article you go to, for each one, if you click on the first link that is not in italics, parentheses, quotation marks, or a template, it always will eventually lead to a loop between this page and Ontology. Charles has spoken! 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed

There is a citation needed in subsection History > 5th-16th Centuries > Europe > Medieval for

the "golden age" of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries in the Latin West

I can't find a source for this 'golden age'. Does anybody know of a source for this? Matt (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy C Rating

Can anybody tell me the rationale behind the WikiProject Philosophy rating of this article as C-class? I don't mean to imply that it's not C-class, but I saw that it was previously B-class and would like some clarification of what are currently the biggest problems with this article without going through a whole review or request for comment process. Is there somewhere I can find a discussion or rationale for this article's current rating? Thanks in advance, Matt (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot answer that immediate question, perhaps someone else can help us. Here is some background though HTH. This article was the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy collaboration of the month for December 2005, so there's been quitea a lot of work and discussion at this page. The article, obviously, is of A class importance. And experts are always gratefully welcomed to go over the page. I have had the page watch-listed over the years, so I will give my quick summary of the state of play, which others may well refine or correct.

There are no major problems with the Philosophy article. The lead is a bit spartan, but it has been subjected to much discussion and is well-thought, referenced and on plenty of watchlists. Beyond that, I would guess now that the article is in a phase of possible growth, since there are always areas that need expanding. Therefore, the article maintains a very presentable picture, but it is not, and never will be finished, that's Wikipedia. Perhaps from time to time one of our images is deleted at Commons, and so that has to be addressed.

Off the top of my head, I see no reason that the article could not meet B-class criteria, or else it is already of such a standard, maybe. No articles are perfect, this one is stable, and as comprehensive as it has got to be now, lots of effort has been put in, with lots of eyes on it. May I suggest, if it needs further follow-up, contacting the classifiers, or whatever, at wikiProject Philosophy, per the Info boxes at the top of this talk page, about the immediate question. Just my opinions here, though I am a long-term page watcher, I could well be wrong but I do HTH NewbyG ( talk) 03:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Matt left a note on my talkpage. I downgraded it to C-class in August 2010, i've just checked what the article looked like at that time and it was the normal reason for downgrading i.e. lacking inline citations. Since then about 40 inline citations have been added but the epistemolgy and applied philosophy sections don't have any still, thanks Tom B (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I see now that Philosophy#Epistemology has only 1 reference and Philosophy#Applied philosophy has none. I'll look into spending some time adding references for those sections and others in this article. Thanks for the help. If I had spent a bit more time perusing the article I might have seen those obvious problems. Matt (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar issues

In the last paragraph of the History section, there is a fragment with bad grammar and a missed comma.

This: "In the Arab-speaking world Arab nationalist philosophy became the dominant school of thought. Philosophers such as Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar of ba'athism and Sati' al-Husri in general."

...should be changed to: "In the Arab-speaking works, Arab nationalist philosophy became the dominant school of thought, which included philosophers such as Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar of ba'athism and Sati' al-Husri in general.".

Unfortunately, the page is semi-protected (for vandals), so I can't edit anything. Lekro (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Have adjusted the sentence, although not exactly as suggested. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The opening sentence states that Philosophy is based on "logical reasoning". This is not true, as the source states that philosophy is based on analytical reasoning of a "somewhat systematic manner". Using the term "logical" is thus highly misleading, especially in this case.

99.162.85.105 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that logical reasoning and analytic reasoning are mutually exclusive? I'll need you to elaborate. Voyaging^talk 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done - does not request a particular edit. Egg Centri c 16:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Section titles and a subject outline

"Branches of Philosophy" redirects here. Where are they? (Rhetorical question.)

It is easy to do. This article outline understandably began confusing intensional meaning with extensional meaning when it renamed Branches of philosophy to Areas of inquiry and added Specialized branches. To me branches are extensional areas of philosophy, science, and other directions of abstractions, such as categorization. This article seems to be falling further away from the terminology (branch, area, field, tradition or doctrinal literature or movements, theory, discipline) and categorical organization of Outline of philosophy.

Extensional "branches": Since science evolved from (natural) philosophy, and science and Philosophy both rely on abstractions for insight; since science is a philosophical methodology, but Category:Philosophy-related lists is a subcategory of Category:Science-related lists, and because Stephen Hawking said "Philosophy is dead" because reality checks are now done in the (modern) Physics (and he's probably right), lets see what Branches of science says:

Compare branches of science:

    Natural science
        Physical science
            Physics
            Chemistry
            Earth science
        Life science
            Biology
    Social sciences
    Formal sciences
        Decision theory
        Logic
        Mathematics
        Statistics
        Systems theory
        Theoretical computer science
    Applied science

Here we see branches Natural, Social, Formal, and Applied. So candidates for branches might be: Natural, Moral and Political, Analytical, and Applied? The top two levels of Chalmers Taxonomy of Philosophy, including a few relevant-to-us entries from the third level, look like this:

Metaphysics and Epistemology
  Epistemology
  Metaphysics
  Metaphilosophy
  Philosophy of
  * Action
  * Language
  * Mind
  * Religion
Value Theory
  Aesthetics
  Ethics as:
  * Applied
  * Biomedical
  * Meta
  * Normative
  Philosophy of:
  * Education
  * Gender, Race, and Sexuality
  * Law
  * Social and Political
  Misc.
Science, Logic, and Mathematics
  Logic and Philosophy of Logic
  Philosphy of:
  *Biology
  *Cognitive Science
  *Computing and Information
  *Mathematics
  *Phycical Science
  *Probablity
  *Science, General
  *Social Science
History of Western Philosophy
  Ancient Greek
  Midieval and Renaissance
  17th/18th Century British
  19th Century
  20th century
    Analytic
    Continental
    Misc.
  Misc.
Misc.

Intentional components: The intensional "core" components of any and all philosophy are mentioned in the banner at Category:Philosophy and in the wiki's Outline_of_philosophy#Core_areas_of_philosophy. (I am not arguing for content here, I'm arguing for the WP:MoS mandate for consistency in articulation).

And I quote,

The core areas of philosophy are:
Aesthetics – The study of the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. Epistemology – The study of the nature and scope of knowledge and belief. Ethics – The study of the right, the good, and the valuable. Includes study of applied ethics. Logic – The study of good reasoning, by examining the validity of arguments and documenting their fallacies. Metaphysics – The study of the state of being and the nature of reality. Ontology – The study of being and existence. Social philosophy – The study of questions about social behavior. Political philosophy – The study of the ideas that become political values.

Weakly proposed outline: <with comments>

    Etymology
    History
    Components
        Epistemology
        Logic
        Metaphysics
        Ethics 
        Aesthetics <lacking content>
    Branches
        <See Chalmers' Taxonomy of Philosophy, above>
        Natural Philosophy <Title should appear in heading?>
        Analytical Philosophy
        Moral and political philosophy
        Applied philosophy
    Major doctrinal traditions
        German idealism
        Pragmatism
        Phenomenology
        Existentialism
        Structuralism
    See also <isms>
    References
    Further reading
    External links

The Intension of extension: To head-off an objection. Outline of Philosophy organizes traditions by components of philosophy because the components are what evolve. Components are what are, then, open to critique and comparison. Happy editing! — Cpiral Cpiral 18:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

^ Nietzsche, Friedrich. "The Will to Power". Vintage Books, 1968, p. 276
^ Heidegger, Martin. "Basic Writings". Routledge, 2009, p. 97
^ Keiji, Nishitani. "The Self-Overcoming of Nihlism". State University of New York Press, 1990, Ch. 7

[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich. "The Will to Power". Vintage Books, 1968, p. 276

[2] Heidegger, Martin. "Basic Writings". Routledge, 2009, p. 97

[3] Keiji, Nishitani. "The Self-Overcoming of Nihlism". State University of New York Press, 1990, Ch. 7

[1]

[2]

[3]