Template talk:PhilosophyTasks
|
|
| 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. |
This task box lists open tasks on philosophy articles. Anyone may feel free to add a task. If you are unsure, ask here or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy first.
If you wish to add this list to your User: or User_talk: page, it would be much appreciated. To insert it, add {{msg:PhilosophyTasks}} to your page. To add the pretty boxed version see on WikiProject Philosophy, use {{subst:PhilosophyTasksBox}} instead. This will automatically add the code for the box to your page, including {{msg:PhilosophyTasks}}.
Any comments about the layout of this task box (or anything else, for that matter) would be much appreciated. — Adam Conover | Talk
| Contents |
Adding More?
Just seems to me like such thinkers as Sartre, Camus, and Pascal are strangely absent from the list. Maybe even Dostoyoevsky. Any thoughs?
- I agree. Dostoy. and Tolstoy are significant philosophical thinkers, I'd be glad to see them on the list. :) Lucidish 17:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is no entry for "Moral Epistemology" -A.Miller
De-Larrification?
What do you mean by De-Larry? What sort of problems do you have with his articles, if any? Mr. Jones 15:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Good question. First of all, much of Larry's Text needs to be wikified. Second, almost all of it is written in the tone of a casual university lecture rather than an encyclopedia article. Rather than presenting a concise summary of the most important points of the topic, Larry provides more of a conversational "walkthrough" of the text. Here's an example from mind-body problem:
- We can ask: Are mental events totally different from physical events, so that you can't explain what mental events are in terms of physical events; or are mental events somehow explainable as being the same as physical events? For example, when John feels a pain, a mental event is occurring; now is that pain even possibly the same as something that occurs in John's brain, such as the firing of some special group of neurons? Now this question we will examine.
- This sort of material is fine for an introductory textbook (in fact, I bet that all of Larry's Text combined would make a great Wikibook), but it's not an encyclopedia article. It's written in the wrong tone, often glosses over deeper technical issues, and is often POV. (Another sample: "Well, I'm not going to discuss the merits of analytical behaviorism. Hardly anyone believes it anymore. Good riddance, I say." This is clearly not pedia material.)
- The last problem with Larry's Text is that many of the articles are so huge and so out of shape that most contributors seem unwilling to put in the effort to edit them. For example, before I revised physcalism, it was a gigantic multi-page lecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Physicalism&oldid=2935235) which no one had edited substantially in three years. The volume of the material was so high, and the content so un-encyclopedaic, that no one could handle the task of truly revising it to be in line with the project of the 'pedia. To my mind, one of the first things we should do to improve the philosophical content on the pedia is to convert, revise, and replace Larry's Text as soon as possible, starting with major articles such as those listed in the box.
- Does that make sense? I acknowledge that the category "De-Larry" is a bit ambiguous, but I feel that we'll make the best progress if we treat this as a separate issue. If you disagree, or if you have other any comments or concerns, please let me know. Thanks! — Adam Conover | Talk 18:43, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
OK. I couldn't sleep, so I've written an outline of the existing article at Talk:Mind-body problem. Hopefully that can be reworked, then the article started in a considered fashion. Mr. Jones 03:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Great work, MrJones, thanks! I'll start working on that article as well! — Adam Conover † 17:10, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
acknowledgement
Most of larry's texts have:
The following is a portion of Larry's Text, which consists of lectures given by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger in courses that he taught at Ohio State University. Wikification and NPOVing are invited.
at the top. When finished de-lerrryfying, I sugest we put
(template deleted)
at the bottom of the page, as an acknowledgement. Banno 21:57, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
Philosophy of language
I did a re-write of philosophy of language last year, and it has been edited since then. Little of it is Larry’s text. So I’ve moved it to peer review. Banno 07:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I have some comments about this article, but I'll post them on the article's talk page when I have a chance. — Adam Conover † 07:42, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
I have been thinking about what sort of structure would best suit the articles. The obvious way to proceed in both articles is by making a distinction between the desire to understand language by formalising it and the desire to use natural language. (I know this is a gross over-simplification, but I think it would serve our purposes, if only because after doing it we would be in a position to show how it is a gross over-simplification). In the former would go Frege, Russel, the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, Davidson and Kripke. In the later would go Moore, the Wittgenstein of the Investigations, Austin, Searle and so on. But it would be redundant to make the same distinction in both articles. It would be greast to have someone who was willing to work on one of the articles, while I looked at the other... Banno 08:24, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
Format of the box
I separated the box layout from the list content, both to make the list easier to edit and to make it possible to choose between include the box or just the list on the page. For instructions on how to add the list to a page, see the top of this talk page. All edits to the list itself should still happen on this page. — Adam Conover † 05:33, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Add page on Fodor to open tasks?
Jerry Fodor is basically just a stub at the moment. Is he important enough to be on the open tasks list? Cadr
Philosophy of Space and Time
Hello, new to the forum. I was hoping the general community would like to weigh in on this issue. I recently wrote an article on the philosophy of space and time, which took me a good deal of time and effort. The title has been changed to philosophy and space and time which I believe is innaccurate both in respect to use within philosophy and for the content on the page. I would like to change it back, but as I've said I'm new to wikipedia and would appreciate more weighing in on the issue at the talk page. Spacetimeguy
- I agree. Philosophy of space and time is more appropriate - we aren't talking about how philosophy relates to space and time, but a philosophical analysis of various ideas of space and time, so yeah. Change it back, unless the change was voted on somewhere, in which case, explain your reasoning and put up another vote. -Seth Mahoney 19:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Eastern Philosophy
I think that this project could include more of Eastern Philosophy. I recently wrote the first half of Confucianism but this page need peer review and copyedit (as I'm not native English speaker). I guess Daoism, Legalism and many other pages should be included in a project about philosophy. Actually, I'm not quite sure that Chinese thought is philosophical (in a narrow meaning), this is debatable, but anyway it had a major influence on one third of humanity during more that twenty centuries, and thus can't be neglectable. Imho Wikipedia deserves a wider and deeper covering of this domain of studies. What do you think? gbog 05:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC) (also posted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy)
Plato
Could someone conversant with Plato help fix this page up? It's in dire need of a major overhaul!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm willing to help fix it up, I'll make a start, if people want to band together on this, let me know - Tom M 21:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Social epistemology
Hi - I'm new to all this jazz. I read the social epistemology entry and thought it was very lacking as it claimed that social epistemology is just about social routes to knowledge production. I am currently studying social epistemology and felt that this did not acknowledge that fact that many social epistemologists what to revise the whole project of epistemology - making it the study of collectively accepted system of belief. Thus they see they job as showing how the products of our cognitive pursuits are changed by changes in our social relations. (sorry now thats a bit wow! ). Groups like the edingbrough school are more tend to see them selfs as solociologists of knowledge and reject the idea that we really evaluate knowledge with any kind of God's eye view. blaa blaa ...
Anyway I am just starting to get a grip of the field so havent writtern much in the article yet if any one else knows anything about it the article could do with some work.--JK the unwise 10:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bernard Williams
I've submitted Bernard Williams as a candidate for featured-article status. If any of you would care to look at it, and either support it or object to it, you can find the article at Bernard Williams and comments should go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, close to the top of the list. Many thanks. Slim 00:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Anybody out there?
Are there any philosophers working on Wikipedia? If so, could you drop me a note, please, or respond here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 08:04, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Nicomachian Ethics
I'm dropping some content from Aristotle on ethics that belong in ya'll's court. Can someone spiffy it up and integrate it? Alba 03:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Testimony, philosophical problems of
I have just written this article Testimony, philosophical problems of. Its largly canabalised from an essay I have just wriiten on our warrent for accepting what other people say. Please come and have a look at it.--JK the unwise 12:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It looks good. To be honest, I'm surprised that so little has been written about this in general (although perhaps I haven't found the correct philosophical terms yet). The closest relevance I found so far, which you hadn't already linked to was Trust(sociology). I couldn't find anything about Coady, or Hume's reference to testimony. So if you (or anyone else) could expand on some of this, I would be very interested. Thanks for the article. WhiteC 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Sloterdijk
- I have written the article--english is not my first language, however, and therefore some sentences may some a bit weird. Also not much of Sloterdijk work has been published in english--i don't even think he is much known in the US--so i have been relying on books, articles and interviews in Spanich; how should i cite those?
- If someone has read Critique of the Cynical Reason and wants to write about it... go ahead; if not, i will do it sometime (i.e. when i finish reading the book).
- About the genetics debate with Habermas: much of it was published in Die Zeit and, i believe, it is available in their website--i do not speak german, which makes a bit hard to find specific articles in the magazine. That section really needs some references so it would be great if someone could do a bit of research in Die Zeit.
Cosmology
I tried to clean up the cosmology page, because it heavily emphasized physical cosmology as opposed to the other related uses of the word in religion and philosophy. Right now cosmology is a disambiguation page and cosmology (metaphysics) is a stub, but I think it is possible to do better. Although I would like to learn, I have no idea what should go into the metaphysics page, so if someone can put something intelligible there, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Joke137 16:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Questions
I've added a questions section to philosophyTasks. It has two aims:
- to obtain answers to the two questions I asked
- to provide as place for some more interaction, perhaps to give some more life to the project
Banno 08:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Critical Realism
I think Critical realism is a very suspicious article. First of all, Roy Bhaskar is basically a nobody as far as major anglophone philosophy departments. On the other hand, there are important American and British philosophical traditions that go by the name Critical realism that are entirely unrepresented, here. This makes the article unbalanced, if not POV. One reputable source (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6o.htm) has an article on Critical Realism with no mention of Bhaskar, while none of the authors in that article are mentioned here. Also, no mention is made of Roy Wood Sellars, who wrote extensively (http://www.ditext.com/rwsellars/bib-rws.html) on critical realism, coining the term and spear-heading the movement, along with Santayana and Lovejoy. --The hanged man 04:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have replied extensively to this critique on Talk:Critical realism. In short, the article does not suffer POV, rather is closer to a stub, Bhaskar deserves mention as do the American Critcal Realists and the Theological Critical Realists. --Fermion 01:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New evil demon problem?
Dare I ask? What is this problem? WhiteC 03:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- From the Reliabilism article -
- "Another objection to reliabilism is called the "New Evil Demon Problem" The evil demon problem originally motivated skepticism, but can be resuited to object to reliabilist accounts as follows: If our experiences are controlled by an evil demon, it may be the case that we believe ourselves to be doing things that we are not doing. However, these beliefs are clearly justified, even though the processes that arive at these beliefs are consistently unreliable."
- Basically, externalist approaches such as reliabilism would conclude that (false) beliefs caused by the manipulations of an evil demon (like the one posited by Descartes) would be unjustified. This is a problem because we tend to believe that one would still be justified in such beliefs (even though they are not true, and thus not knowledge) because we cannot be held responsible for deception which is beyond our means to recognize. It seems to me though, that this objection presupposed internalism. Anyone else...? --AAMiller 04:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, like The Matrix (movie). This is one of those things that I just assumed had been named after someone by now. Oh, and that there was an article about it here, too. But if there isn't, I fully agree we need one. WhiteC 07:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, The Matrix deals with the original Evil Demon problem from Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. I doubt that the NED problem will ever have a popular movie made about it, since you need a solid grounding in epistemology to even understand what the problem is. To have adressed the NED problem The Matrix would have had to enter an extended discussion of whether the inhabitants of the matrix were justified in claiming knowledge while living within it. People generally feel that they would be, and this is consistent with internalist accounts of justification. However, reliabilism (which is externalist) would claim that they are not justified, since the processes used to generate beliefs are consistently wrong (not reliable). This is an epistemic problem, and of a very different nature than the ethical issue of re-entering the matrix which the movie touched on. If you're interested, read about "justified true belief" in the epistemology article to understand what a theory of justification is and why it is important. Then read the internalism and externalism articles to understand the distinction between those types of theories of justification, and then read about reliabilism in particular. Virtue theory is a good example of an internalist theory of justification. --AAMiller 13:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Actually, the articles here are pretty thin, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --AAMiller 13:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, many thanks for clearing that up. I would say that both the original evil demon problem and the new evil demon problem should be put on the same page (evil demon problems?) or, failing that, should refer to each other. You've got to keep these demons properly categorized and under control, or they'll cause all kinds of evil confusion :-) WhiteC 12:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)