Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Scope of the articles Value theory and Axiology

I was thinking about overhauling the articles Value theory and Axiology. Before I get started, I wanted to hear what others think about the scope of these articles. Most sources seem to agree that "value theory" and "axiology" are synonyms for the same project: the study of values. For example:

• Oxford Handbook on Value theory, p. 1: Value theory, or axiology, concerns which things are good or bad, how good or bad they are, and, most fundamentally, what it is for a thing to be good or bad.
• Problems in Value Theory, p. 17: Axiology (or Value Theory) is the branch of philosophy that studies value.
• Value Theory: A Research into Subjectivity, pp.1, 3: the theory of value, or Axiology, ... the formation of axiology, or value theory...

If we follow this idea, there should be only one article, not two. Some sources distinguish different senses and say that the two terms are synonyms in one sense but not in another, for example:

• Value Theory, p. 6: In this sense, often synonymous with axiology (from the Greek ‘axía’, ‘value’), value theory is usually contrasted with at least two different kinds of inquiries.
• Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry "Value Theory" (lead section): In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”.

If one tried to dig into these sources, it might be possible to justify two separate articles by focusing Value theory on the broad sense and Axiology on the narrow sense (limited to "classifying what things are good, and how good they are"). However, there would still be significant overlap and it wouldn't be clear what to do with the sources that simply treat the two terms as synonyms. An additional difficulty is that some sources reverse these characterizations and see axiology as the wider term ([1]). It would probably be better to have only one article and explain these difficulties in one paragraph in a definition section. For a short discussion on this some years ago without consensus, see Talk:Value_theory#Axiology and Talk:Axiology#Merge_Axiology_and_"value_theory"_entries.

If we decide to have only one article, the next question would be whether the title should be "Value theory" or "Axiology". I would slightly favor "Value theory" but both terms are common. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I support a merge into one article. Although I believe "value theory" is the more common term today, "axiology" might be the more common search term—just because it's harder to guess its meaning. As long as there's a redirect, however, and the lead directly mentions the equivalence, I would be entirely fine with either one. Patrick (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the term "value theory" is more common today. This is also true for interdisciplinary works that apply the philosophical idea to other domains. I'm currently reworking the article "value theory", see Talk:Value_theory#Changes_to_the_article. My idea is to include all the main points of the article "Axiology" into the article "Value theory" before converting it to a redirect. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sentimentality

Hello philosophy wikiproject, just popping by because as a user came past this article and you're one of the two wikiprojects listed for it (alongside psychology) but appear the more correct forum. This article, which has been labelled for OR for about six years just read to me as wrong. Like factually wrong. It does have sources and references but even its opening paragraph statement feels like an OR statement and not reflective of the social understanding and usage of being sentimental. If anything it reads extremely callously and narrowly. I cannot check most of the sourcing due to being books but from the talk page, where posts are several years old, some have stated the references are taken out of context to benefit the articles perception and comments dating back 15 years that the whole thing seems to be a solo perspective diatribe. Could someone give this a gander and see if the whole thing needs an overhaul? Looking at its history this direction of the article dates back all the way to its creation and just no ones cared enough to go in depth on either the changing perception of the phrase and term, or that the article was written more as a thesis rather than a neutral philosophical document. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sentimentalism (philosophy) is well-defined thing, as is the sentimental novel (it's not clear to me whether sentimentalism (literature) is an encyclopedic topic beyond what's covered there). The article also mentions a sentimental tradition in sociology, but that is not something I know about.

This article, however, does not appear to have a unified topic. My inclination would be to merge its contents out into those more focused articles as appropriate and turn Sentimentality into a redirect or disambiguation page. As an ordinary word, it's unlikely to meet notability criteria.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of my point, it's all over the place but far and away its mostly "sentimentality is dumb and stupid" from different perspectives without really covering well as you said the ordinary word definition. Its contents neither match the philosophical argument, the novel, or the literature. I wouldn't even know where to merge the content into because the content seems more a think piece rant if anything. This may be an issue with the difference in written discourse between sentimental and sentimentality which despite both words in the dictionary linking to each other one is treated positive and the other is treated negative. Ah language. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The article appears to have been largely abandoned for several years, although it might still have active watchers. You should post to its talk page outlining your proposed overhaul. Feel free to copy your exchange here with me to that venue, which is where more detailed discussion should take place.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Common Era has an RfC

Common Era, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramsey-Lewis method and Ramsey sentence

Do these two articles not have the same subject? Milquetea (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of relationship between The arts, Art and Visual arts

There is a discussion on the relationship between The arts, Art and Visual arts at Talk:Art#Art vs The arts vs Visual arts merges that may interest members of this WikiProject. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Stoicism

Stoicism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)