Talk:Philosophy/Archive 14

message: :User:Dbuckner, and others above, you're still engaging in original research. It is inappropriate for you to look for a Super-definition of what constitutes the subject matter of philosophy when you yourself recognize that there is no agreement among philosphers themselves. Can you not see that that's precisely what you are doing above, with your colleagues?
:I told you my view of what the alternative is - but you guy(s) just choose to ignore it - because it deprives you of your platform - a platform which gives you your opportunity to expound your personal view(s) as to what philosophy is.
:Again, here's my suggestion - consisting of THREE POINTS.
*This is the English Wikipedia - therefore it is appropriate to Commence with the Western point of view.
**Philosophy, today, is predominantly practiced in (higher) schools of learning known as colleges and universities, and by authors in the field whose work is recognized by publishers as worthy of publication when the author is so based (at a reputable school).
***Go to the college catalog to abstract the sub-devisions of the field of philosophy.
:I'm sorry to deprive you of your soap-box - but so it must be.
:Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand what you are talking about.  If you look above, you see I followed your suggestion, and gave a number of definitions based on college and university prospecti.  Dbuckner 08:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it, Ludvikus, but your comments seem to me to be destructive rather than constructive.  Nobody ignored your suggestions, though it is true we failed to consider your suggestions as the only suggestions.  "*This is the English Wikipedia - therefore it is appropriate to Commence with the Western point of view." is totally wrongheaded.  One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it embrace all points of view, and not be in any way chauvinistic.  Also, college catalogs are written by committees, and are a totally inappropriate source of quotes.  Unless you show a willingness to compromise, you will end up marginalizing your own input. Rick Norwood 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia does not embrace all points of view. It embraces a single, neutral, detached point of view  WP:NPOV.  That view comes out of bits of evidence from authoritative sources.  Where there is disagreement it is noted, in a factual, neutral, way.  University prospecti are not the sole source, of course.  But they provide useful evidence of how philosophy is taught, and the skills that are taught.  All the prospecti emphasise the importance of critical thinking skills.  I have taught philosophy at university and can vouch for that.  Students were regularly expelled from the course for failing this course. Rick, you teach mathematics.  Presumably you set exams based on numerical reasoning, proofs, skill in manipulating that sort of thing?  Those skills are to mathematics as critical thinking is to philosophy.  Dbuckner 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy in College Catalogs 

message: Not for the introduction, I think, but a first stab at how different philosophicers or schools have approached philosophy.
 Approaches to Philosophy
Philosopher          	Goal                                      	Method                                    	Subject Areas
Plato                	??                                        	Dialogues                                 	cosmology, theory of mind, theory of knowledge, theology, ethics
Aristotle            	the fundamental reason of everything      	discursive                                	logic, metaphysics, cosmology, theory of mind, theology, ethics
Scholastics          	reconciliation of faith and reason        	the quaestio, dialectic, syllogistic logic	logic, metaphysics, the soul, theory of knowledge, ethics
Rationalists         	                                          	                                          	
Empiricists          	show all knowledge derived from experience	discursive                                	theory of knowledge, logic, theory of ideas
Kantians             	establish the limits of reason            	discursive                                	??
Analytic / Linguistic	clarification of concepts                 	analysis, formal logic                    	theory of language, theory of mind
Dbuckner 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approaches to philosophy 

message: When I began my study at the proletariate Harvard (The City College of New York), I remember my Scotish American instructor, Hutchinson was his name, in the context of Michael Oakeshott introducing me to the notion of Experience. I new already what it meant, probably from my parents, who would tell me to listen to them because the had experience. However, it was in this college classroom that I first learned its philosophical technical sense - and it was only a little later, when I contemplated Descartes that I healized that it was he that made this notion significant with his cogito: even if we doubt everything, the first thing we have to consider is not nothingness, but experience. It is experience which allegedly unmediated, or immediate. And out of it we are to deduce the Self (the I which exists), as well as the rest of the world.
*As much as I may like this term, or find it useful, I find it inappropriate until we come to Descartes. It is not a Greek philosophical notion - simply because the ancient Greeks did not dream the Cartesian dream. --Ludvikus 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience 

message: Please (1) date your signature when you make your comment; and (2) please do not interject your comment into another's comment. There are other readers here - and your undated interjections into my Talk/Discussion ruin the readability of my position for other editors. Please make your points at the end of the text to which you wish to respond!!
:Thank you, --Ludvikus 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Lucaas]] 

message: On Thales and mysticism.  Mysticism not easy to define, but generally a belief that it is possible to acquire knowledge of things that lie beyond the reach of sense-perception, or that true understanding transcends logical reasoning.  From what Aristotle says of Thales in Metaphysics book I, he does not appear to be a mystic.  "Thales …  says the principle is water (for which reason he declared that the earth rests on water), getting the notion perhaps from seeing that the nutriment of all things is moist, and that heat itself is generated from the moist and kept alive by it (and that from which they come to be is a principle of all things). He got his notion from this fact, and from the fact that the seeds of all things have a moist nature, and that water is the origin of the nature of moist things."  I.e. Thales made the empirical observation that living things require moisture, and deduced that moisture is the basic principle of everything.  
There is a very good article here on the relation of mysticism to philosophy.  Dbuckner 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thales 

message: ** Before one comes to the conclusions that certain structures (viz philosophy or rational thought) are absent in other cultures, one has to evaluate one's own assumptions and how they come about. I feel this debate has to address a very basic question - can western civilization think outside the box of biblical theology that structures the assumptions of both theological and secular studies? if you are interested to understand that then you should read [heathen in his blindness] now available online.
** it looks 'trivially' wrong to assume that 'rational thought' is not present in eastern thought. It only shows a lack of familiarity about indian philosophical polemics going on for milleniums (not just centuries!!)
[SV 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The frog in the well syndrome!

message: have been following the discussion
     and trying to think of some way to help with this discussion,
     as I rely heavily on the philosophy portal as a resource.
     I did check your internal link, and I totally agree:
     this person is a runaway train.
     And I am entirely serious when I tell you
     I wonder if it isn't a case of Bipolar Disorder loose on Wikipedia.
     This person should see a psychiatrist,
     and I'm not the one.
     If this is the case, the disruption will go on indefinitely
     until the user is banned or gets proper treatment. 
     Richiar 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no hemlock my friend: maybe a round of drinks for all for this fine discussion ! I have done slightly more research since my posting of yesterday, and now can respond to your message here. 1) I am not formally trained in philosophy, I have my hands full as it is, but I find I cannot function very effectively in this world without some grasp of philosopy, so I try to educate myself, and this Wikipedia effort is commendable. 2) I was not making an accusation as you state above, but experssing a personal concern that came from a momentary impression just at the time when I dropped into the discussion. I wish to now say publicly that I withdraw my concern, and that I am convinced the issues being discussed are from people with sound minds. The debate is legitimate, and the discussion is legitimate. There is some emotionally charged  expression which may have rendered the appearance of fanaticism, which is what may have triggered my concerns, but a little bit of communication and research has cleared this up for me. I would formally like to withdraw the concern about Bipolar Disorder. Please, everyone do continue with your work on the discussion here. Richiar 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged [[Psychiatrist]] [[User:Richiar]]'s Contribution 

message: Since I wish the word rational dropped, it is appropriate that I paste the views of the other two (2) editors who have chosen to post their views on User:Dbuckner - notice the psychological (nonrational, antirational, etc.) under which he must be made to suffer:
     Damn you Buckner — damn your eyes!
     Why did I let you sweet-talk me into going back to that gods-accursed swamp of an article?
     --Mel Etitis
     (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 13 January 2007 UTC)
    Mel brings up a good point.
    I think the only feasible solution at this point is an exorcist.
    { Ben S. Nelson }
    Lucidish 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think we should have a priest on hand. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Swamp of Philosophy 

message: Please don't loose your sense of humor!
Take it easy. Don't get so upset. And don't take things so personally.
:Regarding the two things above, consider this:
   enquire \in-kwr\ enquiry \in-kwr-e, in-; in-kwe-re, in-\ var of inquire inquiry
   (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
:Best wishes, your fello lover of Philosophy, --Ludvikus 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  enquiry vs. inquiry 

message: I know this page is currently protected, but if it becomes unprotected again, someone needs to disambiguate the use of Western in the opening sentence. Planetneutral 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of Western 

message: Here's a principle against describing philosophy as rational.
     The Principle of nonvacuous contrast
     is a logical, or methodological, principle
     which requires that a genuine predicate never refer to
     everything, or to nothing, within its universe of discourse.
*Our Universe of Discourse is Philosphy.
*Everything Philosophical is Rational.
*Whatever is Irrational is Unphilosphical.
**Therefore, by the Principle above, Rational is not a Genuine Predicate. QED
Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But our universe of discourse is not philosophy, because we're trying to contrast philosophy with other things. Anyway, even if your argument were valid, it would be OR. If you don't think that rational argument is a characteristic feature of philosophy, please provide a source to back that up. VoluntarySlave 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Principle of nonvacuous contrast]] 

message: The Wiki works by consensus. Take a look at the guideline. It appears, from my reading of the stuff posted overnight, that Ludvicus is alone in wishing to remove the word "rational" and cognates from the introduction. In addition, this seems to be the main sticking point in the dispute. I may be wrong here, and if so, no doubt you will let me know.
But if this is right, I wonder, Ludvicus, if you and your supporters might consider ceding this particular point, even if only for a while, as an act of good will? If you were to do so, I would be happy to unlock the article as a trial, to see if we can make some progress. I'm painfully aware that it has been locked for more than two weeks, which is a very long time. You are under no obligation to cede the point, but doing so might allow some progress. 
If the article were unlocked, you might consider presenting your account explicitly in another section of the article, or in another article, in far more detail than you could in the introduction. You would be free of course to raise the issue again in the future. Banno 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not sure that's a good idea.  Then I and others will have to make endless reversions to his OR and the article will get locked again.  And why should his account be in any section of the article at all?  All his stuff so far has been OR.  Happy if he wants to include material if (a) it is grammatically written and to the point (b) supported by adequate sources.  When I say 'supported' I mean the source cited logically supports the claim made in the article.  He is in the habit of quoting sources that do not logically support his claims in the slightest.  So, please keep the article locked until he promises to abide by WP policy.  This means (a) no original research (b) editing by consensus.  He doesn't seem to accept either.  Dbuckner 08:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any edits made by Ludvicus after the page is unlocked have to stand or fall on their merit, as do edits by you or anyone else. My suggestion gives him the opportunity to allow consensus in the introduction. If after the page is unlocked, his (or anyone's)  edits are unacceptable to the community, if the impasse continues, other processes would be invoked. But while the page is locked, no progress can be made. Banno 10:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, take your point. But I'm not sure I have the energy to follow the millions of edits that are going to result.  And if I revert any, I get 3RV ban or something like that, and I get banned from Wikipedia?  Dbuckner 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather difficult to get banned from Wikipedia. Nor are you the only one who will revert any unacceptable content. But better than reverting would be to edit whatever is added so as to make it acceptable. Just avoid straight reverts, which don't help much anyway. Banno 11:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't conceivably imagine that any edit made by this individual, in part or whole, would be acceptable.  They tend to be rambling and wholly content free.  For example, his long essays in the introduction.  Moreover, if it really is as difficult as you say to get a user banned, how on earth is anyone going to keep the page in order?  I don't think you understand the sheer quantity of edits this guy is capable of.  And he is very persistent.  He said on one talk page that he is an only child, so he has a very strong ego, and that he will 'win' this argument, come what may.  Eventually we will get worn out, and in that sense he will win.  I for one am sorely tempted to leave anyway.  As you know, I take wikibreaks for exhaustion quite regularly.  The situation would be different if there were a reasonably large group of competent philosophers.  But there aren't, and the few that arrive here quickly leave.  Mel Etitis (who lectures at Oxford, and is probably the most competent philosopher working on Wikipedia) came back and gave up with this individual after precisely two hours of argument.  He says " I don't know what can be done; philosophy articles tend to attract this sort of editor for some reason, which is why I tend to avoid them, despite philosophy being my profession. They generally stay within the strict bounds of policy, leaving no grounds for disciplinary action, but they make life impossible for anybody who wants to make positive contributions."  On which note, I think I will bow out at this point.  I will watch progress with interest, but essentially the guy has won.  Indeed, I predicted he would.  As Mel says, there is nothing in the governance of Wikipedia that prevents a determined crank from destroying good work.  Dbuckner 11:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working towards a consensus 

message: Just as a reminder, since this talk page is getting filled up with all sorts of irrelevant stuff.  The current dispute is about Ludvikus' claim that the words 'Rational' or 'rationality' or cognates should entirely be removed from the definition of philosophy: here.  
My objection is per WP:OR which everyone involved in this debate should read carefully.  ' If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts'.  I have substantiated my view with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.  I am currently compiling a separate section with a link so that we can locate all of these without trawling through the talk page.  Ludvikus has not done this.  He has put forward a number of own arguments which I summarise below, with my objections.  
* 'Rational' means 'rational number'.  I do not understand this argument. 
* 'Rationalism' was not a part of philosophy until the seventeenth century.  Two replies.  1.  We are not arguing about 'rationalism', which is a school of philosophy, but about whether the method of philosophy is rational enquiry.  2.  In any case, rationalism is generally held to begin in the sixth century BC with Parmenides.  Plato is also held to be a rationalist.
* 'Rational enquiry' is superfluous, since all enquiry is by definition rational.  This is incorrect, by English dictionaries at least.  
* 'Rational enquiry' is superfluous, because a genuine predicate never refers to everything within its universe of discourse, and the universe of discourse is philosophy.  Incorrect.  As one other editor has pointed out, the universe of discourse is not 'philosophy' but 'enquiry'.  All philosophy involves rational enquiry.  But not all enquiry is rational.
*  Some philosophers are not rational.  Therefore philosophy does not include rationality.  Note this contradicts the premiss of his argument directly above.  But in any case, the claim in dispute is not that philosophers are rational, but that philosophical method involves rational enquiry.  One might as well argue that, because some mathematicians have produced faulty proofs, that mathematical method involves faulty proofs
* I have given no sources for my claims.  False.  I have given plenty.  The fact they are hard to locate is a function of the vast quantity of vacuous rambling that Ludvikus has produced on this page, and its archives.
* I have been selectively quoting.  False.  I have quoted every source I could find in my personal library, online sources and public reference libraries.  In any case, WP says ' If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts', which is exactly what I have done.
* Some encyclopedias do not have definitions of philosophy.  True.  But how does this prove that the definitions I have cited in other reference works and encyclopedias are not correct?  How on earth does that follow?  Dbuckner 09:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the current dispute is about 

message: I strongly support Banno's suggestion, and request that Banno write the introduction. Rick Norwood 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't. You can't dump the problem in my lap. The only way to get a consensus is to write the damned thing together. Thanks, anyway. Banno 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banno 

message: There is a basic issue that some people persistently are failing to grasp.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. WP policies insist that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia.  
Such facts or theories may be false (in your view).  They may present philosophical problems or contradictions (in your view).  You may be able to prove they lead to contradictions.  If so, please publish your views or your proof in some peer-reviewed journal.  Otherwise, stick to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher, however strange they may seem to you.  Dbuckner 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly you are correct. But the problem here seems to be how this policy is enforced. That the guidelines on dispute resolution were not followed much earlier is a shame. Banno 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion of Verifiability 

message: I'm going to make a proposal, maybe an irrational one; to move this forward, could we put the
discussion in a neutral location? use my discussion page. I will host the debate temporarily,
for a set time, 1month, 2 months, whatever.
Let the editors continue the debate at my discussion page, I will review the archives and render
an opinion after I have digested it. This looks like a truth vs encyclopedia article issue. 
No harm would be done, the debate could return here when its ready. If Ludvikus would consent
to "bracket" (Husserl) the issue, I will research and analyze this; it can always be brought 
back. Let the other editors proceed, and get the article unblocked. If this is a truth vs encyclopedia issue, then it doesn't matter if philosophy is irrational, there just needs to be
a body of work in philosophy to support that position which is a position among other positions.
I will be back in several hours to check responses. I would be using some language theory,
Austin, and Flores, and Maturana as a context for resolution  Richiar 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not entirely sure I understand your proposal.  In particular, I am not sure which group "the editors" in paragraph two refers to, and which group "the other editors" in paragraph three refers to. Rick Norwood 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break logjam 

message: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others
     when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement'''
     Donald Davidson, On the very idea of a conceptual schema,
     in Inquiries into truth an interpretation, Ch. 13
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Davidson 

message: The editors who are so preoccupied with rationality have made absolutely no contribution to the article on it. I infer that they do not know much about it of significance. And that article seeks cleanup. Isn't it poor judgment to call philosophy rational in Wikipedia when rationality itself is dying here, and in need of a cleanup?
:Accordimgly, I propose that they work on it - rationality - which they love so much, and return here once the concept is clarified there! In the mean time, in that regard, let me point out that the Oxford Companion has a 2 column entry on it. --Ludvikus 20:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote refers to scientific method, not philosophical method. It does not support your claim directly. Banno 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, even if you are correct, it makes my point far stronger. It implies that philosophy must follow the scientific method (because it is rational inquery). You do not believe philosophy is to follow the scientific method do you? Well, you must, because that's what's implied by it being subjected to the conditions rationality as explained by the article on rationality.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a question of context. Since many of us do not have access to the volumes in question, you have us at a loss; suffice it to say, quoting a single paragraph is not convincing. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rationality]] - Proposal, Compromise 

message: Said citation ends as follows:
     ..., Kuhn and others have argued that there are no fixed rules of scientific method.
     Rather, we must learn what the correct rules of method are as science develops.
     These considerations suggest that our ability to be rational
     depends on a basic ability to exercise intelligent judgement
     that cannot be completely captured in systems of rules.
That's by H.I.B. Harold I. Brown. Accordingly, philosophy depends on this kind of intelligent judgement. Do we want that implication in the opening? --Ludvikus 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote refers to scientific method, not philosophical method. It does not support your claim directly. Banno 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, even if you are correct, it makes my point far stronger. It implies that philosophy must follow the scientific method (because it is rational inquery). You do not believe philosophy is to follow the scientific method do you? Well, you must, because that's what's implied by it being subjected to the conditions rationality as explained by the article on rationality.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a question of context. Since many of us do not have access to the volumes in question, you have us at a loss; suffice it to say, quoting a single paragraph is not convincing. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationality as Intelligent Judgement 

message: "Reason discerns Truth itself, the absolutely and primitively True; while Understanding discerns only relations, and cannot decide without if.  The proper province of Understanding is all, strictly speaking, real, practical and mateial knowledge, Mathematics, Physics, Political Economy, ... . Let it not step beyond this province, however, not usurp the province of Reason, which it is appointed to obey, and cannot rule over without ruin to the whole spiritual man." -- Thomas Carlyle
Rick Norwood 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike Carlyle (and Kant) but I don't dislike them enough to claim that they were not philosophers.  For a critique of Carlyle I recommend Critique of Pure Verbage by Ronald Englefield.  Rick Norwood 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Had I but world enough and time, I would read all of philosophy in the original.  But ever and anon I hear time's winged chariot hurrying near. Rick Norwood 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautifully put! Ludvikus 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example from Carlyle 

message: Does anyone here have any imagination?  The photo of Socrates drinking hemlock I think is treasoned by the dry text next to it.  Now I do not claim to be any more imaginative than anyone else here, but I'm sure there are lots of examples from history  and our own time that gives a flavour of this aspect of philosophy.  To make it a live issue we might also refer to philsophers' interpretations of topical issue: the war, ecology, french revolution etc.  Academic definition is fine but for wiki it does need some spice. --Lucas 11:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At last, a compromise.  You stick to finding a picture, let the academic philosophers concentrate on a definition of their own subject.  If only it were all so easy. Dbuckner 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy as a vital and live issue