Talk:Philosophy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Latest edits

1. Archived Talk page.
2. Some Wikilinks added or removed.
3. Clarified the section on Topics. -- Simonides 06:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. The period of review on WP:FAC has ended. I have posted the transcript of the discussion.

Vacuum 15:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Another Banno blooper: "Was "Analytic" used by Aristotle?? Don't think so." Anyone who's been introduced to Aristotle's work knows he usually uses "analytic/s/al" in place of "logic/al"; "logic" became a predominant usage only after Aristotle.

Arg. That was a bad one, wasn’t it? It’s thirty years since I read the Analytics, so I’ll blame dementia… Banno

• "Assigned to" suggests that the categories are pre-existing; changed it to "called".
• Shortened the intro to Greek categorisation + they weren't the only ones to develop analysis - they developed analysis in the West, which later created the foundations for the scientific method.

Apparently RK has a problem with the current definitions of Analytic and Continental philosophy, which Lucidish wrote. I don't mind seeing the definitions changed, but until he discusses them with Lucidish I prefer the current version stays or we work on them together. I'd also like to advise that contributors do not simply cut and paste from other articles. -- Simonides 03:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if my take on analytic philosophy was a "strawman" definition, as RK would have it, since what I wrote was just a recitation of what I've come to understand the analytic tradition entails. But I don't particularly mind the new formulation, either. I don't keep my eye on what's going on here very much, but I'm not comfortable with being a gatekeeper for all new modifications. I appreciate your intentions, Simon, but I'd like to be notified if you think that something has gone wrong so I can act in my own defence. Reversion needs to be avoided as a first resort. Lucidish 17:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes Lucidish, but so does wholesale deletion and re-arrangement without prior discussion. -- Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So RK's edits can be re-inserted. Banno 22:56, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

If read all of the comments on this page. I understand there are some rather opinionated personalities involved here. Even so, it appears to me with fresh eyes that the first paragraph could use some rearranging for simple clarity. I understand the need to not sound too dogmatic about what philosophy is. But, this is an article about what philosphy is, so maybe the first sentence should be slightly more bold, given the project is itself a bold one. The main problem I see is that whole article starts off with a less than straightforward statement about philosophy. Here is the rearrangement I suggest using substantially the same words, just in a hopefully clearer arrangement:

Philosophy (a combination of the Greek words philos meaning love and sophia meaning wisdom) aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth. There is no consensus about which approach should be taken in these pursuits, including whether philosophy requires the ancient dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach. Indeed, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy itself seems to require a meta-philosophy to adjudicate.

I hope this rearrangement is true to the orginal intent and meaning. I hope it improves upon it. I removed the throat-clearing "Although it can be conceded that" phrase to get the point right away. In my opinion, the last sentence in the rearranged paragraph seems to lean toward a specific philosophical approach, and therefore I disfavor it. But, it was originally included so I left it in. I look forward to constructive feedback. --RyanKoppelman 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i added a few more links:i love philosophy, no dogs or philosophers allowed, apa, the philosophical gourmet, and prs.org. I hope you guys take advantage of them, and there is a criticism of the philosophical gourmet by the Harvard faculty if you guys can get that it would be swell. 4:00pm, April 14 2005 (PST)

• Hi, a day or two ago, I posted a link for my website, the Rights Philosophy Forum, under the external links section. Today I visit, and it's not there. I'm not sure if there was just a glitch in the system, or if someone intentionally removed it. In the event that it was the former, I'll try reposting it again today. But if someone removed my link on purpose, would you mind dropping me a note and letting me know why, exactly? (rwalden@rightsphilosophyforum.org) There are an awful lot of philosophical resources on my site, as well as discussion boards dedicated to both ethical and general philosophy (admittedly, there's not as much action on the boards as I'd like yet, but these things take time). I posted the link twice, once under the resources section, and once under the forums section, because the site has both resources and forums. If that's not kosher, can we leave one or the other link in place? The site also has several articles about philosophers which were extracted from Wikipedia, and adapted/edited to focus primarily on their ethical philosophies, with links back to the originals on Wikipedia. I think the link to my site is honestly a valuable addition to the philosophy page (human rights philosophy is a major part of ethics). If the editors disagree, could they please tell me why? Thanks. --Randy Walden (rightsphilosophyforum.org)--82.158.22.61 15:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Randy.. I copied your comment to the bottom. You have to put stuff at the bottom of the talk page otherwise no-one will see it. Look at the bottom of this page

Curtesy

Simonides, wasn’t it a bit rude to archive ongoing conversations? Especially when you have been demanding responses? Banno 20:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Were they ongoing? You didn't answer to any of my demands, and since my replies had been around for a while and you neither found them "interesting" nor expressed an inclination to return to them, as you wrote on my Talk page, I assumed the topics had reached some closure. Of course, if you're keen to discuss them, please cut and paste the relevant sections back here. -- Simonides 02:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I might reply over the weekend. But since you are not interested, I won’t. In return, it would not be unreasonable for you to stop demanding replies. But that cuts to the heart of the way you interact with others on the Wiki. Have you ever though of requesting, instead of demanding? Suggesting, instead of advising? If there is any issue I haven’t addressed that you would like me to, just jot it down here. I’m not out to bust your balls, I just want to see a good article. Banno 07:32, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Um, maybe it's your alleged dementia at work again, because as anyone can see you used the word "demanding" above; I simply borrowed it. It's also rather cute how you turn things around to make it sound like I'm antagonistic - maybe we should bring back the earlier sections so other users can confirm that something causing a short memory, if it isn't dementia, is at work. -- Simonides 08:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll go an take my pills, then.Banno

Which raises another issue. Your treatment of RK’s edits was heavy handed. No wonder he is pissed at you. Common curtesy might lead one to leave the edits to Lucid’s work to Lucid to defend, but if you think they needed immediate removal, why not explain your reasons here? You have demanded (your word) explanations for the edits of others, but fail to do so yourself. Banno 07:41, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hello?

Are you ok?

As any literate and non-blind person can see from the above section and the previous Talk page, all my edits are explained, and all the explanations time-stamped, and the time-stamps show that edits and explanations usually concur.

Sort of curious how you don't demand that RK explain his edits, since he's done little more than cut-and-paste over chunks of text he simply deletes.

Besides, I thought you proclaimed that all edits do not need explanation.

(Whatever your problem, it does need to be checked.) -- Simonides 08:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Maybe we should do ourselves a favour and get rid of our frustrations elsewhere? Just a thought. You're bickering like old ladies:D - Sigg3.net 07:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Yep. Banno

If read all of the comments on this page. I understand there are some rather opinionated personalities involved here. Even so, it appears to me with fresh eyes that the first paragraph could use some rearranging for simple clarity. I understand the need to not sound too dogmatic about what philosophy is. But, this is an article about what philosphy is, so maybe the first sentence should be slightly more bold, given the project is itself a bold one. The main problem I see is that whole article starts off with a less than straightforward statement about philosophy. Here is the rearrangement I suggest using substantially the same words, just in a hopefully clearer arrangement:

Philosophy (a combination of the Greek words philos meaning love and sophia meaning wisdom) aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth. There is no consensus about which approach should be taken in these pursuits, including whether philosophy requires the ancient dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach. Indeed, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy itself seems to require a meta-philosophy to adjudicate.

I hope this rearrangement is true to the orginal intent and meaning. I hope it improves upon it. I removed the throat-clearing "Although it can be conceded that" phrase to get the point right away. In my opinion, the last sentence in the rearranged paragraph seems to lean toward a specific philosophical approach, and therefore I disfavor it. But, it was originally included so I left it in. I look forward to constructive feedback. --RyanKoppelman 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simonides claims of Eastern versus western traditions

RK, I think the existing introduction is better than the one you suggested. It does give a bit more breadth to the definition. I also think your definitions of continental and analytic philosophy are the better. The article adopts a divisive tone, East against West, analytic against continental. This is a misrepresentation of the situation. Banno 07:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what creates perceptions of divisiveness, accounting for non-Western POVs when the article has been written mostly by Westerners, and almost entirely ignored non-Western POVs until I showed up, or moronic comments like: "stop adding little digs at people you consider to be "in the West"" or "polemical West-bashing". "RK's definitions" were cut & paste material from other articles - surely the others can do better. -- Simonides 08:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, Simonides. By "doing better" you mean that you want to substitute your POV personal definitions, and remove Wikipedia definitions reached by consensus over the last two years by dozens of Wikipedia contributors. You still are trying to "own" this article, and we will not let you do this. RK

Yawn.

One again we have a serious problem with Simonides. For one, in violation of Wikipedia policy, he is still reverting nearly every single edit to this article (as well as to others that he is attempting to take ownership of.) His dozens of recent edits have destroyed the work of many previous contributors. His edits today have unilaterally reverted a number of changes I made (changes that re-introduced specific definitions that were agreed upon by the consensus of many contributors to Wikipedia) Repeated instances of this behaviour will have to lead to him being banned. RK

Unlike you? Laughs all around.

Secondly, Simonides is again inserting his POV rants against what he incorrectly understands to be "Western society". For the last two years many people worked to develop an accurate consensus on the terms "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy", yet Simonides has deleted them, and unilaterally inserted his own (incorrect) definitions of the word. That violates both NPOV policy and Wikipedia protocol. RK

I didn't insert the definitions; I deleted your cut and paste job in this article, not what the others wrote in their specific articles.

Thirdly, there is an inherent flaw in Simonides' way of categorizing philosophical traditions. He is confusing ways of approaching philosophical problems (such as "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy",) with bodies of an ethnic group's literature. Let me explain: Analytic philosophy refers to a way that a philosopher would approach a philosophical problem. "Islamic philosophy", "Hindu Philosophy" or "Jewish philosophy", however, does not refer to a way that one would approach such a problem. Those latter terms simply refer to the body of philosophical literature that has been created over the centuries by those respective peoples. For instance, "Jewish philosophy" simply refers to the collective body of literature on philosophy written by Jews over their history; it does not refer to a specific way of approaching philosophical problems! In fact, much of medieval rationalist Jewish philosophy is a direct predecessor to analytic philosophy, while other parts of Jewish philosophy are what we now recognize as continental philosophy. The same is true for Hindu and Islamic philosophy. There is no one "Jewish method" of philosophy, no one "Hindu method" of philosophy, etc. The very idea is ludicrous. But since Simonides is hysterically reacting against what he perceives to be persecution from "the west" he is creating out of thin air "non Western" ways of thinking. Frankly, that's racist. Human beings from all cultures and nationalities have developed the same wide array of approaches to problem solving. When we have a section on philosophical problem solving, we need to discuss the many approaches, and leave race and ethnicity out of it. RK 13:34, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you are confused between the summary of traditions and the occasional foray into a discussion of methods. Secondly, it's ethnocentric (and potentially racist - using words with care helps) to suggest that there is a default way of thinking and all cultures converge on it sooner or later/ one way or another; all this article does is account for the presence of non-Western traditions because some of them have distinct histories. -- Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RK, at this late stage in your life you urgently need to do two things:

1. Learn to read.
2. Get your blood pressure checked.

1) will help you to avoid long hours spent battling with strawmen;

2) will smooth your relations with other users (cf. meta:RK, meta:RK/notes, meta:RK/notes_2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#RK).

Alternately you could stop returning to Wikipedia - implausible, I know. -- Simonides 21:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"How to get started in philosophy"?

Is it just me, or is the How to get started in philosophy section not encyclopedic? The 2nd-person address format seems rather textbook-ish--perhaps move to Wikibooks? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think so too, but we could possibly trim it as well as moving the current text. -- Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've deleted that and the section befor it. I don't think either were needed. Banno 22:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Removed passages

"Courtesy" on wikipedia includes quoting passages you have removed if they are substantial and noteworthy. -- Simonides 23:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Some generalizations about what philosophy is

Although Greek philosophy once included the sciences, contemporary philosophy does not make use of consistent, systematic experimentation and observation, though it may interpret philosophical aspects of the same. One might say philosophy is a discipline that critically examines fundamental, abstract beliefs and values, according to a loose set of general methods. By "fundamental, abstract beliefs and values" one generally refers to universal traits such as existence, or to common and long-standing perspectives which large sections of society have applied in daily life, whether to specific fields like economics, or the more general one of merely living.

Of course, physics and other sciences also study universal aspects of things; but they do so through consistent, systematic experimentation. Philosophy studies those aspects that can be studied without such an apparatus, aspects that may initially seem too general or abstract to merit attention. For instance, philosophers may ask what makes the "objectness" of an object, as distinguished from the constitution of objects, their properties and relations to other objects, and perhaps also as distinguished from minds or souls, and attempt to answer their own questions without making use of any prior scientific knowledge; physicists, on the other hand, would proceed with or dismiss such a question by resorting to an agreed, consistent and verifiable approach and notion of objects.

---

How to get started in philosophy

It is a common platitude that "everybody has a philosophy, though they might not all realize it or be able to defend it". Yet "philosophy" as it is frequently used by notable philosophers is nothing like what is meant by people who say "here's my philosophy of life..." The distinction between popular and academic opinion is a starting point for many.

If you're already interested in studying philosophy, your reason might be to improve the way you live or think somehow, or you simply wish to get acquainted with one of the most ancient areas of human thought. On the other hand, if you don't see what all the fuss is about, it might help to read the motivation to philosophize, which explains what motivates many people to "do philosophy," and get an introduction to philosophical method, which is important to understanding how philosophers think. It might also help to acquaint yourself with some considerations about just what philosophy is.

Those who are new to the study of philosophy are advised to look at the articles, also linked above, on logic, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, and political philosophy as the individual treatment of these subjects are commonly used as an introduction in Western academia. Alternately one may simply study the works of major philosophers from various periods and places with the help of several guides and discussions.

People who are inclined to study philosophy with others may wish to seek out organizations such as the non-profit Society for Philosophical Inquiry.

---

Definition of analytic philosophy

Hi, I'm quite new to Wiki, so this might be just an irrelevant thought. Still: in the article, there is way too much focus on the division between the "analytic" and the "continental", which is, as I was taught, not even considered a very interesting division in the last decades - to leave the troublesome comparison of "business to Texas" aside. Heidegger and his demons are dead for quite some time now, so let this pretense-division die out, too. --Golioder 14:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First:

Analytic philosophy: The method of Analytic philosophy is a generalized approach to philosophy. It emphasizes a clear, precise approach with particular weight being placed upon argumentation and evidence, avoidance of ambiguity, and attention to detail. The tradition of Analytic philosophy began with Gottlob Frege at the turn of the twentieth-century and whose primary emphasis is on the analysis of language or meaning. It is characterized by its effort to clarify philosophical issues by analysis and logical rigor.

Second:

Analytic philosophy is predominant in Anglo-American academia, but it has roots in continental Europe and is practiced there too. It tends to emphasize the role of language, mathematics, empiricism, and logic in philosophy, and is generally skeptical of metaphysics, adopting a scientistic approach. Logical positivism is one of the many schools of analytic philosophy.

The second definition is inaccurate. Metaphysical plays an important part in analytic philosophy. The Tractatus, the Investigations, and innumerable other documents are about solving metaphysical problems; they are not sceptical about metaphysics, but about particular approaches to metaphysics. Analytic philosophy is prominent in Germany and Russia, so it is inaccurate to imply that it is a Anglo European phenomena. Nor is it accurate to say it adopts a scientific approach, since one of its key discussions has been to the effect that there is no such thing as a scientific approach. Nor is logical positivism worthy of special mention, as opposed to the meaning as use school or logical atomism. Banno 22:49, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

From the above passage, these are the phrases I added and want to defend:

1. "is predominant in Anglo-American academia"
2. adopting a scientistic approach
3. Logical positivism is one of the many schools of analytic philosophy.

1) could be changed to Anglo-American philosophical departments, but there is really no question that Analytic P. is the favoured approach in the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc and I believe in Scandinavian countries as well. It is prominent elsewhere too, but I would need to see some more information about whether it is given the same degree of preference in countries like Germany, Russia, etc. Whatever the case, the article is not denying that it is studied in those countries, only noting influence.

I suppose I could live with this wording, if recognition was added that it is not peculiar to English speaking countries.Banno 03:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think the current word makes it pretty clear there are no geographic restrictions.

2) "scientistic" is different from "scientific" - if you follow the link you will see what scientistic means. Again, this word is far more concise and preferable to "It emphasizes a clear, precise approach with particular weight being placed upon argumentation and evidence, avoidance of ambiguity, and attention to detail" - a vague statement which is obviously POV, and implies that non-Analytic philosophy is consistently not "clear", "precise", does not rely on argumentation and evidence, does not avoid ambiguity, and does not pay attention to detail, all of which is untrue; in fact it is pretty ridiculous as a definition and should be removed.

Analytic philosophy is not ‘scientistic’ (and ugly neologism, and one that does not appear in the page linked to) either. Far better to go along with the longer description. Banno 03:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Let me repeat, the longer description is vague and can refer to anything besides analytic philosophy. At least one or two of the definitions under Scientism say more and say it better; one could try linking to those specific definitions.

The link to scientism is completely misleading. I have now given what is I think a very standard description of the method of analytic philosophers, emphasising analysis of language. Banno 07:47, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

3) I mentioned one of the schools because the Continental section mentions some - you are welcome to add examples, rather than remove them.

Logical Positivism is certainly not representative of analytic philosophy – but your apprehension that it is might explain your insistence on the use of ‘scientistic’. Better not to list examples rather than use a misleading one. Banno 03:50, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Logical positivism is historically one of the major schools of analytic philosophy, even if you don't think it's currently representative (an analogy might exist with Existentialism, which is not representative of Continental philosophy, but was one of its major labels at one time.) In any case, your objection is disingenuous because 1) apparently you want to insert some excerpts from Analytic philosophy, and leave others out, including the conspicuous mention of Logical Positivism as one of the schools; 2) most of Analytic philosophy that deals with the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, behaviourism etc, borders on pseudo-science. -- Simonides 04:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the metaphysics, because of what you said and also, again, the implication is that non-Analytic philosophies are usually not skeptical - which is false. -- Simonides 03:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

catch-all distinction

The problem is that using analytic philosophy as a catch-all simply fails to discriminate many of the features of philosophical development over the last hundred years. Popper, for instance, explicitly sought to distance himself from analytic philosophy. Quine almost certainly held similar reservations. Yet the article throws all these folk together willy-nilly. I suspect that the slogan "continental philosophy" performs a similar abomination on a different group of philosophers. It's like performing surgery with a baseball bat. The Vienna Circle formed a short-lived part of analytic philosophy, but their method is not representative; indeed, (with the possible exception of the Wittgensteins), no single school is representative of such a diverse tradition. Banno

I would be far happier to throw away the distinction between analytic and continental philosophies, and refer directly to a few of the schools or to particular philosophers. Banno

I don't believe the definitions are necessary either; they arose because I mentioned the bias, which certainly exists (you seem to exhibit it). But it is enough to merely link to the main articles by saying there is a tendency among contemporary philosophers, or at least historians of philosophy, to prefer one over the other, though the divisions are relatively arbitrary. Also, if you don't mind, please leave the "misleadingly" in there - to constantly abbreviate Western Philosophy to Philosophy is, in fact, misleading; it's been the practice for hundreds of years now, I don't see why you're so eager to extend it. -- Simonides 09:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are aware that you exhibit a complimentary bias to the one you ascribe to me. Each of us shows the interests and opinions appropriate to our background. Within the article, emphasising the distinction serves only to make the bias more obvious, rather than remove it. Banno 10:28, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a complementary bias, in the sense that I greatly admire Wittgenstein, Popper, etc and have some of their works. It is true that I find a lot of recent Anglo-American "philosophy" takes the subject to new heights of silliness and, as I wrote above, verges on or is pseudo-science; but the same can be said of unimaginative academics who are apparently participating in postmodern critiques. The distinction needs to be noted because, as I said, it exists, and the newcomer needs to be aware that if entries in dictionaries/ encylopediae/ etc on Continental philosophers are moot and Anglo-American philosophers slightly more comprehensive, it is not because of inherent merits. -- Simonides 03:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Similarly I have respect for Sartre, Foucault and Fromm, and make use of Critical Theory in my work. Sokal has shown that perhaps the silliness is not confined to Analytic philosophy. Banno 07:50, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your reply, since you mostly repeated what I wrote above. Re: your bias, anyone who states (essentially) that Greek philosophy and its antecedents make the only philosophy is clearly speaking out of ignorance, in which case the bias becomes worth noting; as for Sokal, his 'hoax' is widely known but I don't believe he proved anything beyond what I noted, ie that some practitioners of philosophy don't know what they're doing - it doesn't mean that philosophy itself has been debunked. -- Simonides 13:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The same criticism applies to the forced distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy. But there is more of this distinction in Philosophy than a mere link to the main articles - each has a sub-section. The article would again be improved by reference to specific philosophies or philosophers rather than to inappropriate generalisations. What is misleading is using a distinction that does little to explain, compare or contrast the ideas it enfolds. Banno 10:28, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

There is no "forced distinction". It is very clearly stated that there is great overlap between them.

Yes – Too much overlap. It would be better simply to refer directly to the schools or folk involved. Banno

I can't help but argue that there is not "too much overlap". Taoism, Buddhism, and so on, may have rough Western equivalents, but it's geo-historically accurate to call them Eastern traditions. Middle Eastern and Russian philosophies deserve their own distinction. Eurasian philosophies, perhaps. Lucidish 20:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As Lucidish has noted, there is probably just enough about each tradition to leave the reader curious without giving them the impression that everything is either intertwined or rigidly distinct. If it must be tweaked, I prefer it's made briefer, not longer. A discussion of respective methods simply does not belong here, and it should be noted that there is no such thing as a standard "philosophical method" either. Every philosopher or every school invents their own methods; that is part of the task of philosophy. -- Simonides 03:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't generally think that the analytic / Continental approach to labelling traditions is all that hot, and may indeed be entirely useless. But it's popular, so it's worth mentioning, and in any case your rewritten paragraph suits me fine.

The attack on logical positivism as one example of an analytic school seems to be based more on personal preferences than it is on any reason, so I can't really comment seriously. Lucidish 05:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I’m not attacking logical positivism; only saying that it is not exemplary. It is very misleading to site it without reference to other schools. The present text, referring to individuals, is much the better. Banno 07:13, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

That, of course, is fine. It just seemed otherwise from your previous comments. Lucidish 20:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Syllogism

From the article: Philosophers typicaly frame problems in a logical manner, using syllogisms. I have my doubts about the syllogisms parts. Don't contemporary philosophers use formal logic? Pjacobi 22:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest re-wording to Philosophers typicaly frame problems in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic, since Frege and Russell increasingly using predicate logic.

The Relevancy of Philosophy Today

While I appreciate that the article goes into some discussion of the "real world" uses of philosophy, I wonder if it really goes far enough. The "Applied Philosophy" section seems a little dry in this regard. I have considered adding a few sentences concerning how modern philosophers have had (and still have) great impact in femisim, the civil rights movement, issues regarding AIDS, the war in Iraq, etc. The danger, however, is in inadvertently propagating the "philosophy is mere opinion" myth. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. AdmN 01:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think such a paragraph would be useful; the wording simply has to be careful to avoid propagating myths. If you pasted a sample here some of us could probably respond to it before you put it up. -- Simonides 10:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

External Links to WWW discussion boards

IMHO external Links to WWW discussion boards are not encyclopedic. Now, two of them habe been added. The mind-brain link, with the additional malice, that in the past there were attempts to add "hidden". I.e. replacing an existing link and not changing the display text. Anyway, now adding in undisguised may be seen as an improvement.

As not having contributed to the article, I won't jump on the links now. Only bring it to your attention.

Pjacobi 18:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not encyclopedic, but surely useful for people with questions which cannot easily be googled. -- Douglas 20:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Housekeeping

This article has gotten messy. There is no standard structure. Also, I prepose that Western Philosophy have catagory, "Branches" or "Traditional Branches." There is plenty left out. What of empiricism, what of ontology, what of aesthetics? I am not learned enough to be as bold as editing the arcticle, but I hope my suggestions will have some encouragement to the effectiveness of the article. Dustin Asby 05:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Various edits

I made several small edits to the article, the most important being:

1) Changed "is THE study of the ULTIMATE reality" to "a study of the reality" - less pretentious, less vague, more accommodating of sciences that make a similar claim.

2) Moved "(Philosophy in Greek), lover of wisdom" lower down where it was mentioned before and explained better - avoids the immediate association of Philosophy (in general) with Greek or Western tradition philosophy, and is mentioned where the translation can take more room (philosophia only roughly means love of wisdom; it can also mean friend of wisdom, for example.)

3) Removed some titles from Bibliography for beginners - the books were too slanted towards a particular point of view to be suitable for beginners looking for a comprehensive and somewhat objective approach - one might as well include "introductions" by other famous philosophers which are actually part of their respective philosophies. -- Simonides 10:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Russell

Shouldn't Russell's history of Western Philosophy be included in the reference section? It's pretty significant, even today.

Ayn Rand censorship

Wikipedia is not a place for personal prejudice. That the word "fascist" does not appear in the Ayn Rand article is perhaps something you should take into account - if she was such then that is the place to make that point, not in a comment to an edit of philosophy. I have reverted your deletion of the Ayn Rand quotation in philosophy not only for that reason but because, in my opinion and in the opinion of (s)he who included the quotation, what she said was worthy of inclusion. That something is inadmissible because of who said it and not what was said I also find fundamentally distasteful: Here you and the fascists have something in common. Paul Beardsell 11:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Find room in a speaker's corner. I didn't call Ayn Rand a fascist but a neo-fascist - that you can't see the difference goes a long way in explaining anything you have to say on the matter. -- Simonides 21:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have it your own way: Wikipedia is not a place for personal prejudice. That the word "neo-fascist" does not appear in the Ayn Rand article is perhaps something you should take into account - if she was such then that is the place to make that point, not in a comment to an edit of philosophy. I have reverted your deletion of the Ayn Rand quotation in philosophy not only for that reason but because, in my opinion and in the opinion of (s)he who included the quotation, what she said was worthy of inclusion. That something is inadmissible because of who said it and not what was said I also find fundamentally distasteful: Here you and the fascists (not just the neo-fascists) have something in common. Paul Beardsell 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder when people will realise that repeating lies/ idiocy/ etc doesn't make it less so. If anyone here has an agenda to push, it's pretty clear whom. -- Simonides 22:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it is from Ayn Rand it is unacceptable to Simonides and should be censored. See edit comment at Philosophy edit history]. Paul Beardsell 22:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Neo" does not mean "not as bad as" or "leaning towards". It just means "new" or "revived". When you call someone a neo-X you are calling them an X. Use a dictionary. Paul Beardsell 22:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone else's talk page is not the best place to expound your whole philosophy of life. As I said, if you need to vent, go elsewhere; if not I will simply remove your posts from this page. Goodbye.

Non-sequiter. Paul Beardsell 22:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rand has every right to be on the page as a quote. Like Paul said, criticisms of her belong on the Ayn Rand page, with citations. Heidegger is reputed to have been a genuine fascist; but we quote him all the time. To quote someone is not the same as to agree with them.Lucidish 18:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

The period of review on WP:FAC has ended. Unfortunately, there were some outstanding objections, so I have posted the transcript of the discussion. If you fix and objection on this list, please cross it out. Vacuum 15:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Very nicely written. Vacuum 16:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. It is nicely written, (despite being at the center of frequent edit debates). func(talk) 00:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • if that is true, it should not be featured. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article: "A featured article should: Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." I therefore object if there are indeed frequent ongoing edit debates. Jeronimo 06:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • There have been no reverts on Philosophy in the past month, except to correct vandalism and a minor argument on which quotes to include (which was solved by moving them to Wikiquote). Vacuum 00:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • That's great. However, I still object to the article (now having read it as well). 1) There's no picture. Dozens of philosophers are mentioned, so dozens of choices. An article does not need a picture to be featured. 2) I find it strange that the five types of questions identified by the Greek are broadly discussed, while it is then said that "there are others" and "Chinese philosophers in particular had a different conception of categories from the Greeks". If they're important enough to mention, please do so. Also, it is not at all clear if this subdivision is still used in the present. 3) I miss a brief "history of philosophy" section. Most of this information is scattered throughout the article, and difficult to get a hold of . There's at least a long History of Western philosophy article, so there should be plenty of information for such a section. Jeronimo 06:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Revth 08:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ZayZayEM 12:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Objections: The length and diversity of this article merits at least another paragraph in the lead section. The Western philosophy is a list of names and not much more. ✏ Sverdrup 09:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Sverdrup said what I was going to say. Filiocht 10:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Philosophical traditions

Philosophical traditions cannot be both distinct and not able to be considered distinctly. Let’s at least make some sense in the first paragraph… Banno 20:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Stanley Cavell

I removed:

Stanley Cavell, a philosopher whose interests are neither exclusively "analytic" nor "continental", describes this difference in approach by writing that "philosophy may be inherited either as a set of problems to be solved (as Anglo-American analysts do) or else as a set of texts to be read (as Europe does – except of course where it has accepted, or reaccepted, analysis). You can sense how different imperatives for training, different standards for criticism and conversation, different genres of composition, different personas of authorship, will arise from this difference in modes of inheritance." ("The Philosopher in American Life," in Emerson’s Transcendental Etudes, 45-46)

The actual content of this paragraph is mentioned elsewhere in the article; Cavell’s article in the Wiki is minor – it needs much more material – so I don’t see why he deserves a special mention in the main philosophy article… Banno 21:06, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I added this quotation not as a "special mention" of Cavell but because I think it a particularly nice, succinct, and unprejudiced two-sentence summary of the analytic-Continental split. It's fine with me to remove it (and of course Stanley Cavell is not name number 1 that anyone would include in an article on philosophy tout court!) but the article currently doesn't do as good a job explaining the split as Cavell does. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

intro

At the risk of unleashing the Daemons once again, I'd like to take another look at the intro.

Look at " as a practice, aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge, or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being, and truth." Its pretty poor prose. I can't quite see where this phrasing came in; there is a tendency on the Wiki to cram as many links to related topics into the introduction as possible - it looks as if a simple sentence has grown into this monster over time, without any particular intention underlying its Creation. Time to kill the beast.

I think it better not to attempt a definition, at least not inthe first paragraph; but simply to admit that the definition of philosophy itself is a philosophical issue.i do not think anything is lost by removing the diverse links that were in the first para. Banno 11:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed this ludicrous, POV sentence: "it is often - and truly - said that all of Western philosophy is footnotes to Plato". Apart from the clumsy language of the sentence, it is not true. If it was true, then the main body of Western Philosophy would be wacky meditations in the form of contrived dialogues, and its significant contributions would be scanty, inconsequential addendums. Rintrah 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How do philosophers talk about evolution?

Would people familiar with philosophy comment on this: [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Someone just started an edit war against me. I am a newbie.. please tell me what I am supposed to do!Zargulon 22:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Zargulon - welcome to Wiki. I've moved your post to the end of the talk page, as that is the convention here - new stuff at the bottom.

Take a few deep breaths and relax. A couple of reverts does not make an edit war, and no-one here is out to get you. Mel is just doing what Mel thinks best for the article. Any edit you make will certainly be changed by others - that's how it works. An edit war looks more like the stuff at Talk:truth. We also have a policy of looking after newbies.

Don't be tempted to just revert Mel's edits. Instead, justify your edits here on the talk page, and try to get Mel to tell you why the reverts were done. You might check out Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement for info on how to write stuff on the talk page to support your case.

Have fun. Banno 23:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks Banno. I was pretty surprised that an editor would just summarily revert.. I thought that sort of treatment was reserved for page vandalism. Zargulon 23:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel may simply have not had time to comment, but might do so later. Usualy an explanation would be provided for a revert, but assume good faith. Banno 00:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, I only reverted once (not even an edit skirmish), and secondly, no explanation was offered for the edits, so there wasn't really anything to which I could respond. If Zargulon could explain what he or she thinks is wrong with the article, and why it needs changing, I could try to respond.

My revert was, however, basd on the facts that I couldn't see how the edits improved the article, and that they introduced some mistakes (for example, the phrase "a philosophical attitude" doesn't refer to Socrates' attitude to his death). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis's response is very far from being a justification for summarily reverting my changes!

Even if Mel Etitis believes that the "philosophical attitude" origin statement is a mistake, I did not "introduce" it; I merely paraphrased it from later in the article where it had been written by someone else, apparently with Mel Etitis's consent. In any case, if it is a mistake, which I allow for sake of argument, it is difficult to understand why he didn't just remove that sentence.

I don't claim my edit was perfect, and there were phrases that could reasonably have changed or improved (although contrary to Mel Etitis's claims, there certainly weren't "some mistakes"). However, Mel Etitis just reverted it, probably because he didn't have enough time to pay it careful attention. I feel this was hasty .. if he didn't have the time, he should have left it to others. I am sure he acted in good faith. Anyway I am reimposing the greater part of my edit on the introduction. I am saving Mel Etitis time by removing the objectionable statement about Socrates, and tweaking a few other things.

My reason for revising the introduction is that, as others on this page have pointed out, it is quite simply horrible. I believe the suggested introduction reads better, is less confusing, and gives a more accurate description of what the reader should expect to find on the remainder of the page.

Well, Zargulon, much as I appreciate your having worked on the article, I think Mel's new intro the better; Both are an improvement on the old one. Thanks. Banno 09:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys, we can at least agree that the intro is now good ``enough``. There are some things about it that I think are still a little silly, but nothing egregious. There were also a lot of improvements. I am going to hold back a couple of days before editing it again.. but here is what I still don't like.

"Philosophy is a discipline or field of study involving the investigation, analysis, and development of ideas at a general, abstract, or fundamental level". discipline and field of study are clumsily redundant here though of course not in general.

Well, obviously I disagree; there can be a field of study for which no discipline ahs yet been developed, and there are certainly (academic) disciplines for which there's no genuine field of stufy. the two terms are therefore not synonymous, and their disjunction is not redundant.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't read what I said! I will try to rephrase it. I am confident that a reasonably literate and intelligent reader will not feel that the distinction that you are hinting at provides enough information to warrant using both words where only one will do. There is plenty of space in the rest of the article to elaborate this distinction. What was wrong with my scholarly pursuit? Or any number of other possibilities.

I think philosophy is more fundamentally about questions than ideas.. clearly that is not Mel Etitis POV (or perhaps yours Banno), but I don't see this as being resolved so I will let it lie. But given that philosophy is about ideas, is it exclusively about those on a general, abstract or fundamental level? Again, I really think it isn't!! For instance, many religious philosophers examine the question of how to act in terribly specific circumstances with reference to sacred texts, and I think this is better described as the study of questions than of general, abstract or fundamental ideas.

Philosophy isn't about questions; its methodology involves questioning, and what it questions are ideas. As for the second part of what you say, I disagree fundamentally — not only with your general claim, but also with your example (as a philosopher of religion myself). You seem to be confusing the philosophy of religion with philosophical theology (perhaps that's why you use the term "religious philosopher" rather than "philosopher of religion").

I am not making the confusion you suggest.. I had in mind what you are calling philosophical theologist.. what Christians call Christian philosophers, Muslims call Muslim philosophers, etc. They are philosophers, and although your particular community may not use this description of them, it is certainly normative. I encourage you to be less centred on the philosophy of abstracts, at least in the introduction. Again, there is plenty of space in the rest of the article to go into detail.

Well, in fact "Christian philosophers" and "philosophical theologians" don't mean the same thing (andf the same for the other religions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Using the word stoical to define a philosophical attitude is silly .. if someone doesn't know what a philosophical attitude is, they are unlikely to know what stoical means. My version was better (although again it probably could have been improved upon).

Er, that's what the link is for. And I think it better to be accurate and demand some work from the reader than to make things easy by being inaccurate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My phrasing was at least as accurate as yours; I don't see why you think that stoical is the unique defining word for a philosophical attitude. As well as being accurate, my phrasing prevented the possibility of a recursive definition, since, as you know, stoical is itself very often defined in terms of having a philosophical attitude.

"and the approach typical of philosophy can be seen as underlying ancient texts without being made explicit." I find this sentence confusing. I am guessing that it refers to the eastern traditions. Is it saying that the eastern traditions' works did not refer to themselves explicitly as philosophy to the same extent that pre-Socratics did? That is not surprising since philosophy is a Greek word. However you will certainly find a love of wisdom expressed in them explicitly.. why doesn't this count? I think my version of this sentence was less Western-centric, more succinct and provides a better explanation as to why people find philosophy exciting. Zargulon 11:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"I am guessing that it refers to the eastern traditions"; well, yes — I thought the fact that sentence began "In the East" made that clear.

I was referring to the (Western) concept of philosophy (as involving questioning, analysis, etc.), which is not often displayed in the ancient literature of China, India, et alibi (which, on the surface, seem to be describable as philosophy only in the secondary sense of being a set of beliefs or a world-view).

Philosophy isn't the love of wisdom; that's just the etymology of the word. Nor is "philosophy" a Greek word, it's an English word; "φιλοσοφια" is a Greek word, and the two don't mean the same. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The point you are making here is too obscure for me. What I am sure of, however, is that your edit description is wrong.. philos is an adjective meaning beloved or dear, philo is a verb meaning love and the cognate noun love is philia. I am sure it was an honest mistake, but maybe you should question your sources.

Well, Liddell & Scott are long dead and beyond questioning, though all the English dictionaries at which I've looked say the same. I suspect that you're confusing matters with modern Greek, or with New Testament Greek, in which what you say is true. But my main point is in any case that the English word doesn't come from the two Greek roots, but from the Greek word.

I'm not sure which of the four points that I made is too obscure for you. If you let me know I can try to put it more clearly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, again the confusion is entirely yours. I was, correctly, referring to Classical Attic Greek, the language of Plato. I do not believe there exists any English dictionary which claims, as you did, that philos means love. Although some dictionaries may claim that the philosophy comes from philos, rather than philo (which is completely arbitrary), philos does not mean love. My correction was valid. Liddell and Scott, long dead or otherwise, will confirm this as will any other lexicon or concordance of classical Greek of your choice.

Of the four points you made, I answered three of them (see directly underneath the original points). The fourth point, if there was a point, was obscure to me. I don't actually see what is wrong with giving the etymology of philosophy as philo (love) or philos (beloved) and sophia (wisdom). Even though this is an indirect etymology, it is more informative than simply saying philosophy comes from the greek word philosophia and is something which as a reader I would be interested in seeing, just as I would for other greek-origin words, geology trigonometry etc. Of course mention that that the word comes to us via the Greek word philosophia if you think it is important.. I wouldn't argue with that.

I have Liddell & Scott open beside me; "philo" doesn't have an entry — as a verb, as a noun, or (which one would hardly expect) as a neuter adjective. The verb is "philevo", relevant nouns include "o philos", "to philon", and "i philia", and the adjective is "philos". Most English dictionaries at which I've looked simply refer back to the Greek word "philosophia" or "philosophos", but the Collins, for example, gives the etymology of the prefix as: "from Greek philos loving", and the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology as: "comb. form of phílos meaning 'lover', 'loving', as in philósophos". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

φιλω is a verb meaning to like or love which occurs with overwhelming frequency in classical Greek texts. It is found in most lexica, including Liddell and Scott, under φιλεω , an artificial verb form constructed to inform the reader that its declension has slight irregularities due to a suppressed epsilon in the root. While some dialects of classical Greek express this epsilon explicitly (I think), Attic definitely doesn't, so in Plato and most other literature only φιλω will be found. You could reasonably have corrected my φιλω to φιλεω , on the grounds of being the dictionary form. You also mentioned philevo(φιλευω ?): could this be a poetic form? Anyway, it's presumably related.

The primary sense of philos, as an adjective, is something or someone that is loved, not something or someone that loves. From this sense, a philos (noun) comes to be translated as friend or lover; that belies the fact that in the case of the word friend there is no implied direction to the love, and in the case of lover the direction is the opposite of what is suggested by philos. So, I think Collins is not being terribly strict. Zargulon 09:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to make my edits in small steps so that Mel doesn't feel he has to accept all or nothing. Firstly, the return of philo. Zargulon 09:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that there's disagreement, and that it really doesn't matter, why do you insist on including it? This is an article on philosophy, not on "philosophy". In addition, I've given citations, which you've either tried to get round or argued against (see Wikipedia:No original research) or ignored. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My citations are more correct than yours, as anyone with a Liddell and Scott can plainly see; And it is your introduction which presents philosophy as a concept rather than a pursuit.. that is why I still believe mine is better, and I am glad you seem to agree. Zargulon 16:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Why have you consistently assumed bad faith? You reverted my initial change without an explanation or an attempt to improve it, despite it obviously being a good faith attempt to improve the page. You poured scorn on my correction of Greek, citing a lexicon which you clearly didn't even understand how to use. Then when proved wrong by your own source, you cast a petulant litany of irrelevant accusations and try to start an edit war. I deplore your behaviour. Zargulon 16:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

1. You've given one "citation" — which is the same as one of mine.
2. Philosophy is both concept and pursuit; neither of those has anything to do with the comment to which you're responding, which was that the article isn't about a word.
3. In what sense have I assumed bad faith?
4. I "poured scorn" on nothing; I explained my position, and gave citations.
5. This aggressive and insulting approach won't get you anywhere with either me or anyone else here. Nor will your hysteria about edit wars (nor your transparent pretence that you're a new user).
6. I haven't been "proved wrong" by my own source; aside from the fact that it was only one source among a number, you've merely denied that it says what I say it does. That leaves us in the same position.
7. I strongly suggest that you try to calm down, and perhaps we can avoid this discussion becoming a Usenet-level slanging match. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment

I've listed this at RfC, hoping to get some outside opinions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Response Hello, you've asked for judgment on this article. What seems to be the problem guys? From what I've read, we're having trouble defining what philosophy is. A tricky question. Well, for starters, could I have a short POV piece from all concerned stating exactly their viewpoint stated as calmly and unbiased as is possible. I think I have an answer, but if we communicate amongst ourselves this dispute need not go no further than RfC. Thanks.--Knucmo2TALK 19:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For starters, I reckon the introduction is too long and needs editing down at least two paragraphs, any thing other than that is exorbitant.--Knucmo2 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Unbiased POV?? Here goes. The article is lengthy and has considerable links to follow. Maybe an entry page dividing into say, Western and Eastern which interlink at a few keywords, a colloquial page ('philosphy' of life syndrome), etc. I don't know much about eastern phil., but I know Western. In the 20th century philosophy has become predominately the analysis of language. I cite Langer's book from 1952, and later the works of Jaakko Hintikka whose work on the "Ultimate Presupposition of 20th Century Philosophy" will probably be a milestone someday. And of course Wiittgenstein. So maybe more on current relevance. Other than that the page looks OK for someone who will want an idea about philosophy. People familiar with philosophy are not going to really peruse this page for sources and info. They know the stuff and will seek the backpages. The philospohy page is for novices seeking guidance, and that should be the idea behind it. It can't list everything. It is so long that I don't want to read it with any intent, even for proofing. Amerindianarts 20:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Response to Knucmo2: the summary should surely be as long as it needs to be; a long article will generally need a long summary. Limiting it to two paragraphs seems rather arbitrary.
  • I wouldn't say it's arbitrary at all, just a matter of style. A long and winding intro to a subject (Some parts of the intro are superfluous) is not characteristic of encyclopedias, and there are long articles that do not have (nor need) convoluted summaries.--Knucmo2 10:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Response to Amerindianarts: I'd hope to keep out dicdefs of "philosophy" that aren't relevant to the article. Your account of modern Western philosophy is rather out-dated, I'm afraid; it would have been rather sweeping fifty years ago, but is definitely false now (which Langer are you referring to?). I'm not sure what you mean by "backpages", but we should surely be aiming to be as full and as accurate as is consistent with a general encyclopædia article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your reference to "dicdefs" is rather ambiguous, especially in regard to my comments. And no, my conception is not out-dated. Susan K. Langers Philosophy in a New Key may have been written in 1952, but Hintiika's book was written in the last decade. Fifty years is no time at all in the course of history and the course of changing movements in philosophy. By "backpages" I mean pages that are linked to from the philosophy page, and yes, the course of philosophy in the twentieth century is the analysis of language and still is in the twenty-first century. Perhaps you are a little behind the times. Amerindianarts 00:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"the course of philosophy in the twentieth century is the analysis of language and still is". This simply isn't the case; the early twentieth century saw (at least in some parts of Western philosophy) a concentration on (one might almost say obsession with) lingusitic analysis, but that had relaxed and broadened by mid-century. By the time I began studying and then teaching philosophy, the old rather blonkered linguistic philosophy was beginning to be something of a museum piece, and that process has long been completed. As someone who teaches in what used to be the centre of that approach (and has taught philosophy in three other Universities of different kinds), I'm in a reasonable position to to judge this. More relevantly for the purposes of Wikipedia (and the opposition to original research) you'll find the same story told in every introduction to or history of philosophy written in the last few decades.

Where are you based? Might it be a hold-out against philosophical progress? I don't know of any, but I'd not be surprised to find that they exist. I even know a couple of logical positivists. (Hintikka is a bit long in the tooth at seventy-six, and doesn't exactly represent modern philosophy.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well hang on here, I'd definitely say we need to aim for accuracy, and before another dispute starts, I'd ask you both to read this as a definition: "Philosophy (a combination of the Greek words philos and sophia) is understood in different ways historically and by different philosophers. It, therefore, requires a meta-philosophy to adjudicate. Although it can be conceded that philosophy aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth, it is not clear whether these pursuits require a dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach." These are some of the conclusions I've drawn from this debate, that it is impossible to define. Your thoughts please?--Knucmo2 10:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Difficult to define, yes, especially to those within the discpline. I would be careful about using terms that are not immediately clarified or defined for the reader. I still think that someone within the discipline is not going to seek Wiki's definition, thus the definition here should be as clear and simple as possible for the novice, making sure the distinction between philosophy as a discipline and the term "philosophy" in its common use is clarified. In regard to my previous comments, philosophy is certainly not limited to the analysis of language, but the analysis of the presuppositions of language is certainly the attempt for philosophy to define itself and its methods as a science, e.g. "ontology" as a term is more prevalent than "metaphysics" which denotes the archaic. I'm sure you'll do a fine job. Just keep it simple and clear is my suggestion. Amerindianarts 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Philosophy is universally agreed to be difficult to define, and impossible to do so accurately and exhaustively in a short article. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do our best, though.
2. I don't think that there's any significant disagreement over the fact that essential to philosophy is dialogue and dispute.
3. While agreeing that the article has to be clear, that doesn't mean that it should oversimplify or mislead.
4. "e.g. "ontology" as a term is more prevalent than "metaphysics" which denotes the archaic." ??? First, they mean different things; secondly, "metaphysics" is at least as often used as "ontology"; thirdly, "metaphysics" certainly doesn't denote the archaic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have taught it myself and have been listed in the past in the Index to American Philosophers and belonged to the American Association of Philosopher Teachers, but to me that's not relevant. A "simple" definition that would mislead or "oversimplify" is an assumption on your part, not mine. I see a big difference in moving from simple to oversimplify. Hintikka may be long in the tooth but Lingua Universalis vs Calculus Ratiocinator is still very relevant and I would not confuse it with positivism. As for the regional distinction you wish to make about areas of philosophical holdouts, I see your use of regions as an ego showing itself. Very unattractively I might add. Yes, ontology and metaphysics do mean different things. I would consider ontology as a major branch of philosophy and this branch is sometimes referred to as metaphysics instead, which I think is a mistake. Ontology is a distinct branch of philosophy, and metaphysics has a more general presence throughout philosophy. I don't think I need to go into Aristotle's curse for it's namesake with you, but it's connotations do have an archaic flavor, especially to someone who may not be that familiar with philosophy and its history. Amerindianarts 18:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Have at it. I've said my piece and anything further is non-productive. Amerindianarts 18:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't follow much of Amerindianarts's response. First, I made no assumption; I merely said that I agreed that an introduction should be clear but not oversimplify or mislead. On the other hand, it's true that a simple definition of something that isn't simple is by definition oversimple misleading (just as a complex definition of something that's not complex is overcomplex and misleading). Secondly, I'm not sure where confusion between linguistic philosophy and positivism comes from, but it's not me (though they're both out-dated; positivism is pretty well dead, though, whereas linguistic philosophy is simply relegated to one among many approaches still adopted, albeit less commonly than many other aproaches). Where do you find linguistic philosophy alive and well in modern philosophy? Thirdly, metaphysics is the major branch of philosophy, ontology being one of its main components. I don't know what you mean by Aristotle's curse, nor what namesake you're referring to, nor why you think that "metaphysics" has archaic connotations. In twenty-odd years of teaching, talking about, and writing philosophy I've never come across that (with either home or North American students). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The differences between User:Mel Etitis and I are not going to be resolved here on this page and I believe it is not really addressing the issue. Thus, just non-productive bantering back and forth which is upsetting the real issue at hand. Perhaps a brief etymology of philosophia and its history beginning with Homer or Herodotus, Pythagoras, Plato, etc. would work as a good introduction, accent the dialectic (or Socratic method) and so on. In that manner the differences in definition among philosophers and the difficulty of a definition may be apparent. I really don't think I have anything more to offer here, and I really don't want to waste my time on any philosopher who has to ask "Where do you find linguistic philosophy alive and well in modern philosophy?"

The term "philosophia" was invented by Pythagoras, but its etymology doesn't throw much or any light on the discipline. As for the issue of linguistic philosophy, an answer would have been more convincing than the somewhat snide refusal. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. Homer used sophia to refer to the skill of the artisan for practical means. Herodotus used a verb form. However, that Pythagoras "invented" the term cannot be confirmed with a resounding yes or no, since the information source is the writings of Plato's students (Heraclides?). All that is certain is that the meaning was evident in Plato. Nonetheless, the etymology is interesting.Amerindianarts 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: User Mel Etitis. The namesake, or curse I was referring to is the story (quite popular in the lore of the discipline) that the term metaphysics was conceived because Aristolte placed the book "after" the Physics, and may have actually meant "after physics". I apologize if I didn't make that clear. Amerindianarts 00:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The story is true, but it's not Aristotle's doing; the ordering was a later convention, and the term wasn't used by Aristotle (who called the topic "first philosophy"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Did not intend to imply that it was Aristotle's doing. Just noting that metaphysics as a term has a questionable beginning and that Aristotle didn't use it.Amerindianarts 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm back. I just could not let the question lie. First,"linguistic analysis" was your phrase. I commented on analysis of language, or some such. Maybe the same, maybe not. Aristotle's formulation of the categories, syllogism, or whatever, can be seen as an early attempt to formulate semantic categories. This attempt was even more pronounced in Kant. The antinomies, categories, the schemas. All attempts to arrive at semantic categories. Wittgenstein's turn was basically the subject of Hintikka's Ultimate Presuppositions.... The tradition has always been there and I see no need to cite modern philosophers carrying on the tradition inherent in philosophy. The question simply confounds me. What we say and what we mean. finis Amerindianarts 00:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The claim which we're discussing was: "in the 20th century philosophy has become predominately the analysis of language". You seem now to be saying that the analysis of language (commonly known by philosophers as linguistic analysis) is part of philosophy. I don't disagree with that (though your interpretation of Kant is controversial). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I still think "in the 20th century philosophy has become predominately the analysis of language". It has received its fullest, explicit expression in the twentieth century and I think it will continue to do so. As far as your requests for comment here, you seem set in your ways and intent on countering any suggestions I might have, so why don't you enlighten us backcountry folk, O wise one, as to the current trends in philosophy, etc.Amerindianarts 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with Amerindianarts Zargulon 10:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

First use?

I'd thought that Pythagoras was credited with coining "philosophia" (because he couldn't claim to be engaged in wisdom, only in its pursuit). Liddel & Scott cite him, then Plato. Is there some ground for jumping forward in time to Aristotle? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Addition to definition of philosophy?

The contemporary philosopher Lao Sze-Kwang has written about the failings of most definitions of philosophy to totally encapsulate all the works in the field. He has suggested that the best way of defining philosophy is to consider it to be the “result of the operation of reflective thinking upon special subject matters.” This creates a definition that doesn't end up excluding any works that are typically classified as philosophy. It's not without fault but I find this to be an interesting alternative definition, does anyone else feel it would be appropriate to add this to the article? The Way 05:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)philosophy today is seen as the study of the science of the mind.

To user 213.255.198.252-Those that attempt to restrict philosophy to the "study of the science of the mind" are those that attempt to reduce the discipline to psychologism, which it is not.Amerindianarts 16:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Philosophy

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that there is an extensive History of Western Philosophy section (despite there being an entirely separate article on the same subject) while there isn't a History of Eastern Philosophy section at all? This seems terribly biased in favor of Western thought. The Way 20:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The solution would seem to me to be to have a better section here on Eastern Philosophy, rather than edit back Western Philosophy. Banno 21:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though I am not able to undertake the task at the moment. If anyone can get it started that would be great. At least something needs to be put in the article regarding Lao Tzu (Taoism), Confucius, and Siddartha Gautama (Buddha) as well as their relations to Hindu thought. The Way 21:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Confucius and Laozi, yes (even though the latter might not ahave existed), but the Buddha wasn't a philosopher. There is genuine philosophy in the Buddhist tradition, as in the Hindu, but let's try to stick to what we mean by philosophy (as stated in the summary). Also, why should we include material on the influence of Chinese philosophy on Hinduism? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The article claims that there was a long tradition of Japanese (and Korean) philosophy by the 19th century. I don't know about Korean, but my Japanese-philosopher friends and colleagues have always led me to believe that there's no significant pre-modern Japanese philosophical tradition. What are the grounds for the claim in the article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

This article now suffers from a malignant introduction. Surgery is needed, before it spreads to a sixth paragraph. One should not need to scroll to find the TOC. Banno 08:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, but a lot of these sections require merging too. Lucidish 15:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a vast improvement Zargulon 10:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC).

It wasn't my entry, but do you really think "conjectural" is any worse than "speculative"? Amerindianarts 01:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It also wasn't my entry, and the link (http://www.rightsphilosophyforum.org/Forum/index.php) is more appropriate for the external links section in the Ethics articles, but how can this entry be reverted with the editorial comment "not philosophy but human rights"? Since human rights is the concern of ethics, which is one part of a major branch of philosophy, it would appear from the comment that the revert was based upon reasons lacking in sound editorial judgement. The are many specific issues concerning human rights. Concrete issues, and to think that philosophy's involvment in these issues is simply "speculative" is to do a disservice to the discipline. Amerindianarts 09:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed here.. was quite happy with the previous version, and didn't really understand the revert. Zargulon 09:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

RE "speculative" and "conjecture". I really don't like either one. Amerindianarts 10:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy does involve much speculation (though it's wrong to suggest that it's only that), and the term is used explicitly in areas such as the "speculative metaphysics" against which Kant argued and 19th-century American philosophy's "speculative idealism". Within philosophy, speculation is used to mean much more than mere conjecture. Kant uses it to mean something like "transcendent" (not "transcendental"); speculative metaphysics includes attempts to derive theories from the concepts of the Self, God, the Cosmos, and Freedom; in the case of idealism it's distinguished from "absolute". Conjecture is merely "the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence; guess" (Collins Dictionary), and this is certainly inappropriate here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that 'speculative' is part of the title of certain schools of philosophy, and what it is used to mean within those schools (not, as stated above, within philosophy as a whole) are irrelevant, since the word is not being used in a technical or philosophical sense here. The formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence is a fundamental process in natural philosophy (related to abduction), so I think "conjecture" ought to stand if "speculation" does. Zargulon 14:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, a day or two ago, I posted a link for my website, the Rights Philosophy Forum, under the external links section. Today I visit, and it's not there. I'm not sure if there was just a glitch in the system, or if someone intentionally removed it. In the event that it was the former, I'll try reposting it again today. But if someone removed my link on purpose, would you mind dropping me a note and letting me know why, exactly? (rwalden@rightsphilosophyforum.org) There are an awful lot of philosophical resources on my site, as well as discussion boards dedicated to both ethical and general philosophy (admittedly, there's not as much action on the boards as I'd like yet, but these things take time). I posted the link twice, once under the resources section, and once under the forums section, because the site has both resources and forums. If that's not kosher, can we leave one or the other link in place? The site also has several articles about philosophers which were extracted from Wikipedia, and adapted/edited to focus primarily on their ethical philosophies, with links back to the originals on Wikipedia. I think the link to my site is honestly a valuable addition to the philosophy page (human rights philosophy is a major part of ethics). If the editors disagree, could they please tell me why? Thanks. --Randy Walden (rightsphilosophyforum.org)--82.158.22.61 15:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Randy.. I put your comment at the bottom. You have to put stuff at the bottom of the talk page otherwise no-one will see it. We are just trying to discuss why your link was deleted.. The guy who deleted it has a history of deleting reasonable stuff without providing an explanation, and we are trying persuade him that this makes for trouble. The problem is that he has editor status so he can pretty much do what he likes. Anyway I personally thought your link was totally appropriate but see above for differing opinions. Zargulon 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This is for user Mel Etitus. You seem to have some knowledge of philosophy but nothing that would reflect twenty years of teaching. Your editorial judgment is really deficient, and as I commented above the editorial comment you made “not philosophy but human rights” when reverting that website displays a gross misconception and lack of understanding of what philosophy really is. True, the site in question is limited to ethics and probably belongs at the ethics page, but to say that human rights is “not philosophy” is a gross injustice to our (or rather, my) discipline. You also stated when reverting one of my edits that you had never seen an MLA. My question is, when it is a format required for any papers that are submitted by students to professors, or for submissions to symposiums or for publication, how can you teach philosophy and never have seen one? Given this and your view on human rights I can only deduce that if you are as philosophically knowledgeable as you say, then you are teaching in a third world dictatorial environment, or you’re not teaching at all, or you’re God. And Philosophy is not limited to speculation. Speculation is not even a major methodology. I am trying to think of a categorical proposition that is speculative. Can you help me? True or false, but not speculative, and I am not limiting myself to the Kantian categorical. I mean traditional logic. Even in modern logic the hypothetical is a material implication, and you may speculate on the disjunctive, but it itself is either true or false. Your views are very narrow (which is very not-doing-philosophy) and I think your edits are impeding the progress of this article. You teach that Pythagoras "invented" the term philosophia. I teach that that may be the case according to the writings of his student Heraclides, but all that is certain is that Plato used it. The rest is up to the student for growth, and I discourage them from excerpting some so called fact from a secondary source. Maybe just a difference in methods, but I daresay if we were each others students neither one of us would get good grades.Amerindianarts 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. First of all, thanks, Zargulon for popping my post down here and signaling me, and thanks for your support, Amerindianarts, as well. How to classify the philosophy of human rights? That's precisely one of the sticking points, not just for human rights philosophy, but for human rights, and for philosophy. Beginning to uncover the the winding philosophical paths between ethics and political philosophy, with healthy doses of metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of mind thrown in, was more than a challenging task a few years ago when I began working on an essay. The number of resources available on human rights has quite possibly doubled (or more) in that time frame. Now, I don't claim to be an expert yet in human rights philosophy (I'm just now beginning a second BA in the University of London's philosophy program), but the RPF represents the fruits of a lot of man-hours put into researching human rights philosophies and issues. In addition, it has a page and forums section dedicated to general philosophy as well. Now, Mel Etitis, I know you're not saying my site is worthless, you're just questioning where it belongs. Good enough. But in researching human rights, I kept coming across so many fundamental philosophical principles (what is "self" or "person", for example), that I've got to agree with A.C. Grayling's comment in his Introduction to Philosophy 1: a guide through the subject when he says, "On the 'divide and conquer' principle, the systematic study of philosophy has come to organize itself into fields of philosophical inquiry.... [But there] are so many connections and overlaps between them that to separate them under different labels in the way just indicated is somewhat artificial (though not entirely so)." Now, on the one hand, it might be only worth listing links for the 4 major branches of philosophy on this page for clarity's. That would certainly be one way to do it. But what, exactly, would we be clarifying? It certainly would not seem to be a clear, overall impression of philosophy, and the many things it can get its hands sticky with. On the other hand, one might be a bit more open, and also list links for various other sub-topics and cross-over topics as well, in the thought that seeing a wider field of study might pique the interests of the philosophically curious.--Randy Walden 18:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

From my own experiences, human rights (and animal rights) issues are taught in ethics classes with ontological, epistemological, etc. questions remaining within the scope of that branch of philosophy. One reason for this I guess is that many students in these classes were non-philosophers (e.g. doctors and nurses taking a class on medical ethics) who wish to see the scope of the class limited. The philosophy article may be too broad in scope for the link, unfortunately, and I say this because the scope of philosophy is so broad that there is not room for everything that could be, or should be, inserted or referred to. A certain regimen within a taxonomic structure has to be maintained. It certainly without question belongs on the ethics page, and maybe some other pages. You should probably get more feedback on this from other editors. Ethics is just a branch of a division (axiology) within philosophy. Other editors may see human rights as having more range throughout the discipline.Amerindianarts 19:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll skip AmerindianArts' message addressed to me; the needless personal attack wouldn't help even if it were less silly, and is better ignored. With regard to the link, though: first, we have a policy against vanity posting (that is, if it's your site, you can't post a link). That can be flexible, but secondly, we're not a collection of links; we try to keep lists of links to a minimum. Thirdly, the site isn't really relevant here, as this is an article on philosophy in general, while your site is (at least according to its front page, backed up by what you say above) specifically about human rights. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that all Amerindiarts messages, including the one referred to above, have been thoughtful and accurate.. it is to be hoped that his calm, reason and knowledgability will prevail. Zargulon 21:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

For example: "Your editorial judgment is really deficient, and as I commented above the editorial comment you made “not philosophy but human rights” when reverting that website displays a gross misconception and lack of understanding of what philosophy really is. True, the site in question is limited to ethics and probably belongs at the ethics page, but to say that human rights is “not philosophy” is a gross injustice to our (or rather, my) discipline." This contains a rebuttal of something I never said, baseless impugning of my understanding of my subject, and a disagreement with me presented as a statement of my "deficiency". Frankly, if that's thoughtful and accurate, I'd hate to see what thoughtless and inaccurate would look like. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

--not philosophy but human rights-- quote, unquote, not an excerpt. Your editorial comment from "22:23, 22 September 2005 Mel Etitis" on the philosophy page. Amerindianarts 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It was an edit summary — compressed, shortened, and explained (as if anyone not determined to read incompetence into it needed explanation) on the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we can get around this vanity thing by having Randy remove his own link and having someone else insert it. There seems to be an agreement that the site is needed somewhere within the philosophy pages. If not here, then somewhere else. I checked the site, and although I didn't check the content of the forums, there was a wide range of topics that are prevalent and offered in philosophy classes in just about every major university in the United States. It probably would have avoided a lot of problems and silliness if the original editorial comment had mentioned something about vanity posting rather than be simply wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong..........Amerindianarts 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a fine idea Zargulon 21:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I visited the page at Human Rights with the intention of adding rightsphilosophyforum.org but discovered that it was already there, and it appeared to have been there for quite some time. In regard to "vanity posting", this is not an exclusive, all or nothing , written in stone, steadfast rule. It is intended to discourage contributors from adding links to for-profit sites and inserting a business name into text links. If someone has a genuine information site and is not posting for profit motives or free advertsing, then it is not vanity posting. It is called "contributing". Amerindianarts 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above. And let's remember, the first time it was reverted was before the reverter even knew about any connection between Randy and the site! How many more times is the reason for reverting going to change, I wonder... Zargulon 08:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• My point is that it is already at Wiki and has been for awhile. I think that the philosophy page is too broad in scope for it to be located here, but OK at some of the Ethics related pages. I think that Randy was trying to argue that Human Rights issues and subjects permeate philosophy, but that isn't the case. The major divisions of philosophy overlap, but aren't really totally inclusive of one another, e.g. Logic and values, aesthetics, etc. are not always compatible. The only two things that permeate all the branches of philosophy is reference, meaning, and the questions we ask, meaning Language and Metaphysics.Amerindianarts 10:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, I was unaware of the rule about so-called "vanity posting" when I posted my link. It certainly didn't seem to me like I was trying to spam wikipedia here. I created the site in the first place simply because I believe in the project, and I think there's a need for it in the philosophical world. I pay for the site out of my pocket, devote a good chunk of my free time (as I'm sure most of you do here), and ask for absolutely nothing in return. If that's vanity, well, what the heck. It would seem, on first instincts, that such a rule would best be applied more or less according to the standards which Amerindianarts lists above. Nonetheless, I won't personally post my site anywhere on wikipedia in the future. If you feel it's a good fit in the human rights section, leave it there. If you feel it would also be a good fit on ethics, post it there (unless there's a rule against double posting as well). If someone feels it's fluff, well, take it off. I basically agree with the idea that net users don't need an endless quantity of links: what they want are relevant and useful links. I think mine is both relevant and useful (regardless of which particlar article it might or might not be most appropriate for). Regardless, I have neither the time nor the desire to get bogged down in a quibble about this, nor do I want to ruffle any feathers. I'm sure we all, as people, have more important things to do, and as philosophers, more interesting things to put our minds to. Cheers. --Randy Walden 13:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Randy, I am going to comb the pages and find appropriate places to enter your site. I think it is worthwhile, but can't guarantee that they will stick. I hope User:Zargulon does the same. Amerindianarts 17:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside all the hysterics and persecution-complex stuff, Wikipedia's position is that people shouldn't add links to their own sites, and that if those sites are worthwhile and useful, then they'll be added by someone else; I also said above that that was flexible (though not all editors would agree with me). I made clear (not to Amerindianarts, apparently) that I removed the link here because it was much too specific, this being a geneal article on philosophy. I also pointed out that Wikipedia isn't a link farm, and we try to keep the number of links to a minimum. All these points can be found in Wikipedia policy pages. I can't pretend to understand why Amerindian adn Zargulon are trying to make out that this is a personal matter between Randy Walden and me, but I'm sure that he'll have seen that it isn't. I stopped frequenting Usenet years ago in order to avoid this sort of thing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Worldview

Does anybody agree that the term "worldview" is misrepresented, or poorly presented, in the section on non-philosophical uses of the term "philosophy"? There is a great disparity in the way it is presented in the intro and its presentation in the subject section. Amerindianarts 15:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism to philosophy

In my humble opinion, this article lacks of the "criticism" chapter on the subject matter: the philosophy, philosophical seeing of the world and the philosophical methods as well.There is lots of cricism, though, coming from different sources. Especially, that as I found, philosophy here is meant in the terms of academic philosophy, plus some info on the non-academic Eastern philosophy. Therefore, there are some schools of thought that are left behind, for example the religious thought. And the criticism towards the academic philosophy is quite strong: there are movements as anti-philosophy (check google.com), there is religious thought movement and other people disagreeing with the notion, that the academic philosophy is going to explain everything in the world using reason. I'm sure they deserve a room in the article (who, where, when, why opposes philosophy etc.); it should be NPOV, of course. Now, every subject, including the undeniable and obvious ones as the scientific skepticism or more fuzzy domains as psychology have the "criticism" section in their wikipedia articles. Then, why not philosophy? With kind regards, Critto

More

I think the article is impressive. It is long, but how could it be less so? I have no doubt future detail will be modularized. If there still is any issue about east and west, the distinction definitely should exist. Much of eastern philosophy is in support of Buddhism, which doesn't much approve of theory, and for sure doesn't love it. One minor point. I corrected a typo on the link for Oliver Wendell Holmes. But, there are two, father and son. Which do you consider the philosopher, or is it both? Ought you to say?Botteville 21:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Motives Goals and Methods

I put Pythagoras' germinal definition of philosophy in here because it seemed to fit. I did see the partial write-up under "Western Philosophy", which I thought was good. I still thought Pythagoras' definition belonged in the main article, especially the idea of theory. I would leave them both just the way they are. But, if anyone disagrees, just go ahead and change it.

By the way the dates on eastern philosophy are a little questionable. Maybe the Buddha lived that early, but the paradoxes are somewhat later. I know a scholar who has taken the theme that dialectical Buddhism is a transplant from Greek philosophy dating from the time of Alexander, who conquered Pakistan, the former home of Buddhism. It hasn't caught on. If anyone is interested I can supply the name of the book and author.Botteville 21:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)