Talk:Glossary of philosophy

message: The definition of atheist given here is tendentious.  It takes side in the debate between atheists and theists by adopting the atheists preferred definition of the terms: atheism, agnosticism, and theism. This has been a relatively new way of defining the terms.  Historically, atheist where those who disbelieved in God or gods.  Socrates was accused of atheism simply for denying the existence of the Greek gods, not necessarily for lack belief in any god.  This shows that "atheist" was understood as a term for a God-denier.  
Why does the definition matter?  How is it bias and favor one side in the debate over another? The atheist argues that the burden of proof in the debate is on the person making a claim or the assertion.  The theist claims that God exists, so he bears the burden of proof.  Traditionally, the atheist also makes a claim.  He claims that God does not exist.  If the burden of proof is on the person making a claim or an assertion, then both the theist and the atheist have a burden of proof to meet.  However, if atheist is defined as a simple lack of belief, not a belief that God does not exist but simple the absence of the belief that God does exist, then the atheist does not bear a burden to prove any claim because he is not necessarily making the claim that God exists.  The theist bears the burden of proof because he is making a claim--that God exists.  So, the atheist has the tactical debate advantage by redefining and re-framing the debate in a way that they don't have to prove reason to think that God does not exist.  The theist has to proof that God exists and the atheist can sit back and critique the theists argument.  It is always easier to provide evidence for a position than it is to offer criticism of someone else's position.  So, what atheists have, more or less since Antony Flew, called "atheism" has been traditionally called "agnosticism." The shift in terms is an intentional effort to re-frame the debate in a way that give the tactical advantage to atheists, who don't need to prove anything but just sit back and take pot shots at the theists arguments.  I propose we either define the terms as they have been traditionally define, i.e. theist believe God exists, agnostic's lack belief in God either way (they don't know either way), and atheist disbelieve in the existence of God.  I did not change the article yet on purpose, so we can work together on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.107.112 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism 

message: Note that while the glossary entries on Wiktionary are linked to Wiktionary definition articles, the glossary entries in Wikipedia glossaries are linked to Wikipedia articles, which afford greater coverage of each topic.  That is one of the main purposes of glossaries on Wikipedia: they are a specialized form of list.  Lists are used as both identification and navigation aids, while annotations on such lists assist readers in selecting articles which they would like to investigate further.  So this article, a glossary, serves multiple purposes:
# it is a list of philosophical isms, which constitute a large proportion of the schools, doctrines, and theories of philosophy.  Studying this list will help students of philosophy become more familiar with the subject of philosophy as a whole as well as its terminology.
# as a table of contents, this specialized list serves to identify Wikipedia's coverage of philosophical isms, gathering them into one place, to provide a selection from which to choose from, as well as to make it easier to find a particular ism a reader is looking for even when he or she can't quite remember the precise term.  Glossaries like this one help combat memory difficulties such as the commonly experienced tip of the tongue phenomenon.
# this article used to be a plain list, with just the terms themselves, which served as links to the articles.  When using the list I found that it was very time consuming to follow each link to see if the topic was the one I was looking for.  Therefore, I copied and refined definitions from each article to this list, to help speed up this process.  Reading down the list is much much faster than following each link, which can entail a several second delay (even longer for modems), which is often longer than what it takes to read a definition.  Having brief summaries all in one place saves the reader a lot of time, whether he wants to study the whole list or is looking for a specific ism (for which he remembers the definition but not the term).
For these reasons, this article should be retained as a Wikipedia glossary.  Please help expand this useful article.  Thank you.   The Transhumanist 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of glossaries on Wikipedia 

message: About 2/3rds of the entries have definitions.  Please help fill in the remaining 1/3rd.  If 5 people filled in one definition per day, this page would be done in just 22 days!  If one person (me) has to do it all alone, it'll take over one hundred days.  Please help.  --The Transhumanist 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's now about 2/3rds complete! 

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I removed the citation and expert tags.  They're just clutter.  And considering that this page was constructed (and is maintained) by cutting and pasting the definitions from the articles of the same name, when the citation/expert issues are applied to the base articles they should in turn be applied here.  The Transhumanist 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tags from article 

message: This article should absolutely be at AfD.  It's a "glossary," and "glossary" means "dictionary," and "dictionary" means Wiktionary, where the terminology is already represented.  I.e. this is duplicated material, and that's a no-no for Wikipedia.  I'm surprised (or I was) that the article exists, much less that it's being fought for.  If one is passionate about it, why not edit at Wiktionary, where people will actually go to look for the material, instead of here, where the only attention will be negative?  Makes no sense.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no.  It's a list and lists are all over Wikipedia. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I think, I could be wrong, but I think it's finished... :D  I added some entries for you, that makes...twelve, I think... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No certianly not finished yet, plenty of stuff to add. I'll work on it.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I did it. 

message: I've put this list up for Featured list status, it's a great list and good luck everyone.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool.☆ 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left some comments regarding the nomination on the FLC page (I don't think that this article is ready). --Sharkface217 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLC Nom 

message: I find that the two columns detract from reading the article. Anyone else feel the same? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does reading a book with double-columned pages detract you from reading the book?  I've never encountered anyone with such a problem and would be interested in what way it detracts you, or how it detracts you, etc.  Just curious.  The Transhumanist 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No I disagree, I think having two columns makes it easier to read.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be in two columns? 

message: I think "Glossary of philosophical terms" would be a better title, because there are plenty of...er...philosophical terms that don't end in -ism. Those are worthy of inclusion here. What do you guys think?--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I doubt that  Darwinism is a philosophical "ism" or term at all, be it perjorative or not.  It's a scientific theory if anything surely, not a philosophical one.  Not all words ending in "ism" are philosophical terms or theories and not all philosophical terms or theories end in "ism".--Philogo 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinism 

message: I do not think that the following, any more than Darwinism,  are philosophical terms or subjects and hence a fortiori not " topics relating to philosophy that end in -ism " (unless we stretch the word "relating" so that the list could include almost anything:
A lot of them would be better placed in aricles relating to theology, economics, lit crit etc.  If we do not prune we might as well rename the article "list of words that end in -ism, handy for scrabble players perhaps?
Capitalism
Careerism
Communism
Anthropomorphism
Collectivism
Consumerism
Creationism
Cubism
Defeatism
Egalitarianism
Environmentalism
Equalitarianism
Ethnocentrism
Expressionism
Externism
Extropianism
Fascism
Fideism
Freudianism
Gnosticism
Humanism
Islamism
Jainism 
Jansenism 
Jonesism 
Judaism 
Legalism
--Philogo 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to disagree about at least a few of those. I am surprised to see Humanism on there. You don't think humanism is a philosophical theory (ism)? In other cases the word pertains to the philosophy of a different field (i.e. Cubism, Expressionism in art; Communism, Capitalism in economics, etc). Perhaps there should be a different list for that sort of thing List of philosophical theories by field? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you are saying. A theory of X may or may not be a philosophical theory. A word ending is -ism is not necessarily a theory. A theory may or may not raise philosphical issues or may or may not assume the validity of a philosophical theory. I am dubious about the the -isms shown above. --Philogo (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ????? list of topics relating to [[philosophy]] that end in ''[[-ism]]'' ?????

message: A few years ago, the name of this glossary was changed to "Glossary of philosophy" in the hopes that changing the scope of the title would result in the content being expanded to include all general terms in the field of philosophy.  But this has not happened.  The scope of the glossary has remained the same, as it still only includes ism terms.  It's such a beautiful set of isms, that nobody seems to want to mar it with non-ism terms.
I think it would be fitting to return the page to its former name, which is what it still is: the "Glossary of philosophical isms".
Then a new "Glossary of philosophy" can be started, with general philosophical terms.
If there are no objections over the next few days, I'll make the name change.
Thank you.  The Transhumanist 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: " It's such a beautiful set of isms" - ha-ha. Misses ismism, though. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change the name back to "Glossary of philosophical isms" 

message: What is Steism? There is no link and the description is so short that it is a worthless entry. It either needs to be linked to some page, given a better description, or deleted.--Bejjinks (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Probably just a joke. —Mrwojo (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steism? 

message: I came to this  page by tracing one confusing term (which I turned into the disambig page now ("Emotionalism"), and after checking two more random pages from the very top here I see that the article slowly lost its verifiability, to put it politely. Since wikipedia is not paper, I am going to trim the text severely, leaving only basic definitions. The rest may be found in the immediately wikilinked articles. Otherwise the items are slowly turning into unreferenced WP:FORKs of the corresponding wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deterioration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glossary of philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015165808/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=epistemology&use1913=on to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=epistemology&use1913=on
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220075703/http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/logicism.php to http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/logicism.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Very little of this article is cited, almost all of the entries have to do more with religion or politics then philosophy, a good chunk of them that are about philosophy go into odd details or don't even define their entry. Recommend removing all of the different types of atheism and creationism and all of the religions and political ideologies and rewriting all the actuall philosophical terms from scratch, with citation of sources.  - car chasm (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossary of... philosophy? 

message: This would be a fantastic tool for young philosophy students as a set of alphabetised or era-ordered flash cards. 2607:FEA8:D5C0:14E0:34D6:1201:325A:B932 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quizlet port?