Talk:Philosophy

This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

For past Talk pages please see:

Contents

1 Latest edits

2 Curtesy

3 Simonides claims of Eastern versus western traditions

4 "How to get started in philosophy"?

5 Removed passages

6 Definition of analytic philosophy

6.1 catch-all distinction

7 Syllogism

8 The Relevancy of Philosophy Today

9 External Links to WWW discussion boards

10 Housekeeping

11 Various edits

12 Russell

13 Ayn Rand censorship

14 Featured article candidacy

15 Philosophical traditions

16 Stanley Cavell

17 intro

Latest edits

Archived Talk page.
Some Wikilinks added or removed.
Clarified the section on Topics. -- Simonides 06:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)

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

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:

Learn to read.
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

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:

"is predominant in Anglo-American academia"
adopting a scientistic approach
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Philosophy&action=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)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Philosophy"