Talk:Philosophy/Archive 4

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is likely to undergo a fair bit of change in the next few weeks - seeTemplate:PhilosophyTasks/vote Banno 06:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: The American Heritage® Book of English Usage 
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996: 
:...But sentences ending with prepositions can be found in the works of most of the great writers since the Renaissance. In fact, English syntax not only allows but sometimes even requires final placement of the preposition, as in "We have much to be thankful for" or "That depends on what you believe in." — goethean ॐ 22:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry.  I thought this was an encyclopedic format. An encyclopedia may quote such writings, but they don't write such sentences. I think they adhere to what is commonly considered good grammatical form.  And the rule is that sentences or questions ending in a preposition can always be rewritten to reflect good form.   That is beside the point, because the sentence "how and of what" is the universe comprised is more comprehensive and true to the real question of philosophy than is the more limited "of what". Amerindianarts 22:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I still think the rewrite reflects the question of philosophy better than your edit.  It could be made better with the possible inclusion of "why".  All of the samples you have given, whether prepositions or adverbs, must be considered as colloquialisms.Amerindianarts 23:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, "of" describing "made" as an adverb is not correct. "Made of" in this context means "from", another preposition. Amerindianarts 23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've never come across this rule. Your so-called source doesn't even say it's a rule - just that some awkward people think it is. Quote: It is simply not grammatical English to say I don’t know up where she will end and It’s the most curious book across which I have ever run. Also, it IS an adverb - it describes a verb. Prepositions describe relationships between nouns. Infinity0
It is a rule of English grammar. "of" is a preposition in any dictionary and is not cited as an adverb.  If you use it as an adverb, then it is displaced and is representative of either colloquialism, euphemism, idioms, or slang, which are such intricacies that don't belong in an encyclopedic format.  The sentence you have quoted above is not something that is written in an encyclopedic format.  Quoted maybe, but not as content.  I suppose you would say that in the sentence "Where is this road going to" that "to" is an adverb?  Why not just say "Where is this road going?"  "Going" already states the infinitive "to go", so why be awkward and redundunt by restating "to" (I believe this is a close example of one of your samples in an edit summary).  The sentences don't say the same thing and represent cluttered thinking. By the way, it is "indefinite", and not "indefinate". If you think these little intricacies don't mean anything at WIKI, you are wrong.  And if you think these little intricacies don't mean anything in philosophy where clarity (unclutteredness) of thinking is essential, you are very wrong.Amerindianarts 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you stating that my brain is not in working order??  And language is subjective only to a certain degree.  If it were subjective then everyone would have their own "private language", and if you do your homework I think you will find what philosophers think about that.  If language is subjective, then how do we communicative (it's called describing the world objectively) effectively.  Is there some indescribable intersubjective force that I should know about?  And to the person that changed "comprised" to "composed", I will leave it, but the reason for the change can only be cited as another example of someone who doesn't understand English.Amerindianarts 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, people can agree on subjective things, like moral codes. There's nothing saying that subjectivity means everyone's version of it will be unique. My point is that if everybody understands it, then it's correct - that's the basis of language. And everybody can indeed understand "what the world is made of". There is no reason for you to change it because it's "wrong", because it isn't wrong. Changing it makes it sounds weird, and totally UNcommunicative. Language is not an elitist subject, it's supposed to be available for the masses. Infinity0 18:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the unsupportable "compliments". I'll ignore them. Infinity0 18:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  prepositions 

message: Turning to the Motives, Goals, and Methods section, the discussion of China and Persia but not India seemed a major omission.  But as I added a few words about India, it struck me that the inclusion of history here is really not part of the stated topic, and the various history sections scattered throughout the article really need to be gathered together in one place. Rick Norwood 15:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives, Goals, and Methods 

message: I just edited the Beginner's section in the Bibliography to add ISBN numbers and to convert it to Harvard-style citing and alphabetized.  Now, what I want to know is if people like that?  The ISBN numbers are an obvious improvement, but I personally like the style of the rest of the Bibliography more than what I changed it to...  The diffference is:
*Harvard style:  Lastname, Firstname (Date of Publication). Title, Publisher. ISBN ####
*Other sytle: Title by Firstname Lastname. ISBN ####
What do you guys think?  --Michael (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! The more formal Harvard style is preferable in an article such as this. See Wikipedia:Cite sources - I will add this to the Wiki project guidelines, unless there are objections. Banno 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Question for the Group 

message: The most obvious problem with the article is the bifurcation into East and West. This is an example of systemic bias in that it is a Western distinction; it is explicit in several places in the article and implicit elsewhere. It goes against Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions.
It can be written out fairly simply, by treating the traditions and schools in roughly equal terms. 
Banno 18:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Vs. West 

message: I recommend shortening this section, especially considering that there is already a substantial article at History of Western philosophy. More discussion of philosophy outside Europe is needed. Banno 18:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Michael (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Philosophy 

message: 1) Do we follow the outline of the article as it is now or the outline by Go For It! or some other outline.
:While GFI presents a good outline, I've found inthe past that such planning tends to stifle editing rather than foster it. The Wiki is a very organic place; it is better to spread lots of muck and see what grows than to try to force it to grow to a predetermined pattern. Let the outline grow from our editing. Banno 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (is any one else having problems with the server?) Combine them.  I think the flow of the narrative will determine the sequence, rather than a dogmatic attachment to chronology. Banno 21:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to decide 

message: I think the current intro is very good, but I'm wondering if it's too vague.  Fundamental, central, exalted? ...to what (or whom) are these ideas fundamental.  I reverted my own edit ("reasoned pursuit of truth" because not all philosophers employ reason.  However, I think there is a better way to write the intro lines.  Ideas? (Edit the proposed intro above, and when we seem to have a consensus in here, we can transfer it to the article... so it doesnt look like an edit war). --Michael (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The reference to early scientists referring to themselves as 'natural philosophers' is a tad anachronistic. Further, the statement "...the word (philosophy) originally included all forms of knowledge and all methods of attaining knowledge" implies that philosophy no longer "includes" all forms of knowledge and is an extremely loaded sentence as the discipline of philosophy does include all domains of knowledge insofar as the methodologies and perhaps metaphysical presuppositions and epistemic constraints of other domains can be brought into question. That is, so long as you do not follow the natural epistemologists line (and such innfighting does not need to be brought up in the introduction). --Valve 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Intro

message: Well, I suggest we start reading as many introductions to philosophy as we can, so that eventually (by the end of the month) we'll be able to rattle introductions off the tops of our heads in our own words.  Bertrand Russell had a pretty straight forward approach in explaining how philosophy picks up where science leaves off.  That is, what the scientist can't detect, measure, and verify, the philosopher ponders.  And then there's the bumper sticker that goes:  "You'll never get out of this life alive!"  Well, how do we know that?  Philosophy deals with questions that science isn't sophisticated enough (or will never be sophisticated enough) to answer.  Go for it! 12:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What, do some research? Yes, we should comment about the relation between science and philosophy.Banno 20:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit the books? 

message: The introduction aside, where is philosophy headed?  After pondering the universe for thousands of years, is philosophy converging on a single conclusion of greatest importance, or perhaps a worldview that is key to attaining everything that truly matters?  Is there an ultimate ought?  Is there a normative imperative?  Which philosophers have dealt with these issues?  Is there a pattern emerging from all the philosophical traditions, movements, schools, theories, arguments, and principles that have come before?  What is the greatest piece of wisdom that philosophy has ever produced/induced/decuded/whatever?  Go for it! 12:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not turn the talk page into a forum. Any pattern we identified would of necessity be POV. Banno 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if you assume I'm writing in the context of what is recognized out there in the literature (and then presented in the article as such), and since POV is against policy, and we are all serious Wikipedians here, this is not a frivolous assumption.  From now on, just assume I'm not talking about including POVs (not mine anyways), original research, or any other of policy's dirty words.  Go for it! 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't we stop throwing the POV buzzword and Wikipedia policies around, and continue this discussion in the context of what to include in this article without stiffling the flow of ideas? Go for it! 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In your words, go for it, if you like. What I wrote above is intended to head off an edit war. If you have your head around all of the literature, and think you can come up with something with which all will agree (which is what NPOV amounts to) then write it up. Banno 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the main point? 

message: Atheism is a feature of several major schools of thought, including existentialism, logical positivism, nihilism, pragmatism, and the more recent extropianism, humanism, and transhumanism.  Where are philosophers divided on theism vs. atheism?  How central is the atheism theme?  What percentage of philosophers are atheistic/non-theistic?  Go for it! 12:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is not a forum. We should talk about the relation between philosophy and religion, though. But not specifically imply that philosophy/s are atheistic.Banno 20:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm talking about what has or has not been covered in the body of philosophy literature.  Hasn't any prominent philosophical writer out there covered these issues?  This has got to have been discussed seriously by serious philosophers somewhere in print.  Help me dig.  Go for it! 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't religion subsumed by philosophy?  That is, isn't it a subcategory thereof?  Go for it! 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you also want to make religion a part of philosophy? If so, why not Physics, biology and so on? Role on the conquest of the Wiki by the rightious forces of philosophy! Banno 02:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does atheism fit in? 

message: What if Man were to discover how to create living organisms from inanimate matter?
What if Man were to create an artificial intelligence?
What if Man were to discover alien life?  What would these events do to the concept of God?
Is faith appropriate?
Do you have to see God to believe in him/her/it?  
Does a booming voice have to come down from the sky?
How can another man's ("inspired") word in the existance of God be enough?
Go for it! 12:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The interest shown in the topics above by new/young/less cynical editors shows the spin that the prose of the article should perhaps have. IT should enthuse about how philosophy addresses these important issues; this might well grab the attention of those post-pubescent searchers for identity; and I'd rather have them read our articles than Wilbur or some other Californicated rubbish. We need more people who can think critically on "life" issues and ethics. If there is any purpose to the philosophy pages of the Wiki, it is to foster critical thought in the reader. Banno 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would it take to prove or disprove God? 

message: As noted by many, philosophy is one of those topics that is too big to define.  I still like "Life, the universe, and everything," but I never did hold out any hope that that would survive.  I like "fundamental, central, and exalted" because fundamental includes first principles -- logic, observation, epistomology, etc.; central includes what people consider most important -- philosophy of science, political philosophy, and so on; exalted includes the estatic philosophers, such as the Sufis, religious philosophers such as St. John the Devine, etc.  Essentially, it says that philosophy covers the beginning, the middle, and the end.  Which just about covers it, don't you think? Rick Norwood 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, logic, much as I love it, is fundamental, but not fundamental to being.  And while knowledge is central to my philosophy, a Zen philosopher would say that rejection of the illusion of the self is central.  Rick Norwood 15:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  Writing a concise introduction that actually says something is pretty difficult, it seems.... --Michael (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In reference to the latest rewrite -- I like the shorter version, but I'll give others a chance to voice their opinion. Rick Norwood 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the shorter version as well, but his opening line is pretty good.  I'm going to take a crack at combining them... --Michael (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok. Done. The opening line is pretty edgy for an encyclopedia, but I think it's an eye-catcher. We should also work on the rest of the article though, because that will help in refining the intro.  The history section, for example, seems really big (especially if the main articles are elsewhere)... (Note to self, ISBN-ify the remaining Biblio sections!).  Let me know what you guys think of the intro. --Michael (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Valve, I had read your comment before and I did try to address that concern by adding the little bit about "Through the rise of universities and the separation of learning disciplines, philosophy has taken on a more specialized meaning, though it is still a universally applicable practice."  I was hoping that extra phrase would alleviate your concerns for the earlier sentences by explicitly stating that philosophy still undercuts all sciences... but we have to make the distinction that getting a degree in philosophy these days does not prepare you to do something like structural analyses.  The sciences, which used to all be called philosophy, have a high degree of specialization now. --Michael (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, I completely read over that much needed addition! --Valve 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving active discussion to the bottom of the page

message: Infinity() has reverted to my last version; thanks, but please also do some re-writing of it. It was written in a rush before work, and needs more to make it an effective piece. Most notably, it needs more references and citations. Banno
I also listed above what I think should be included in a discussion of the various meanings of "philosophy" - that it is considered a method, a subject, and a process as well as an academic discipline. This is what is drawn in my version.
A note that whatever we come up with as a final version, it must also include a paragraph or two describing the structure of the remainder of the article. Banno 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banno's edit 

message: As I said before, I don't like the phrase "Philosophy is the study of ideas that are fundamental, central, or exalted". fundamental to what? Central to what? Exalted by whom? It does not give any indication of what philosophy is. Banno
It is not possible to prepare an effective introduction that says what philosophy is in one or two paragraphs; nor would it be necessary to do so. It is most unlikely that the reader will have come here having no idea of the meaning of "philosophy". the question is far more likely to be raised as a part of an introductory undergrad course than anything else - we are not here to do other people's homework, but to get them to read more philosophy. Banno
"...though it is still a universally applicable practice" I find problematic, because of its vagueness. I can see from what is written above that it has something to do with the idea that philosophy underpins (not undercuts!) science, but this in itself is a recent idea, coming I think from around the time of Kant; prior to that , philosophy  science; furthermore, I understand that there are those who think that philosophy and science are quite distinct and unrelated, one having to do with understanding the word, the other with the betterment of the soul. In short, the phrase does not say what it appears to be intended to say. Banno 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miketwo's edit 

message: Folks, this really is a dog's breakfast of an article. Stuff is plopped down just anywhere, history mixed with etymology mixed with exegesis mixed with lists. Yuck. Needs extensive shuffling to make a sensible structure.
In what I just wrote, I set out the main sections as 
* A discussion of the uses of the term
* an overview of the various branches of philosophy
* a brief global history
* a reasonably extensive set of resources
Banno 20:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog's breakfast 

message: I removed much of the material from the history section, with the aim of shortening it. It was interesting to see the peculiar bias it had - a modern Thomistic history, with scant mention of analytic philosophy. The most savage of my edits is this one []. You are welcome to edit this material back in, but remember that this should be an outline of the history of philosophy - perhaps some of this should go to the main article? What is left needs to be broadened somewhat to include more eastern writers, and no doubt someone could improve on my constipated prose. Banno 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Banno -- you admit you were rushing.  Please keep in mind that what you were rushing to change was the careful effort of many people over a long period of time.  Don't rush!  Change a little bit, discuss changes before you make them, then, if others like your changes, change a little bit more.  Stop and think! Rick Norwood 22:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was rushing yesterday, but I have been considering what I have done carefully over the last week or so. In this case, as I said above, there was little structure to one large section of the article, and too much content in another. I think under the circumstances, it was better to be bold! I've finished for now, so you are free to do as you please with the article. All the material is still there in the history page, so other editors are free to re-introduce anything they like. My aim has been to introduce a better structure - please comment on the edits. Banno 23:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The structure of the present article is much clearer, and the material is for the most part in the appropriate place. The repetition of ideas has been removed. read it with care, and think again - at the least, leave my edits up for a few hours so others can comment. Banno 23:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banno's edit 

message: By way of justification for my edits - I have removed this section[]. In detail
* the first paragraphs on etymology now sits with the other para on etymology in the meaning and use section.
* The Paragraphs about Pythagoras now sit in the history of philosophy section
* The fourth paragraph, beginning "Philosophical thinking also developed elsewhere", was also moved to the history section
* The next paragraph is subsumed by the discussion of method in the new "Meaning and use" section
* The next paragraph, on logic, was discussed previously in talk and was considered contentious, so I removed it; I am happy to have it re-inserted if you like.
* The next paragraph uses the bifurcation into analytic and continental philosophy, so I removed it.
* The paragraph on language as the primary tool is now in the history section. 
* the final paragraph of that section was removed
The sections on applied philosophy, philosophical traditions, and western and eastern philosophy were placed under the new main heading, branches of philosophy. Banno 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview of philosophy 

message: This section takes on much of the material that was previously in the overview section. I promoted it. Banno 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Branches of philosophy

message: This section is now under "meaning and use", with no separate heading. Banno 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-academic uses of "Philosophy"

message: This contains the material I had previously listed for the introduction. It might require some expansion, and it would be inappropriate to have a large discussion of the definition actually in the introduction - so I sent it to its own section. Banno 23:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning and use

message: I wonder if I will recognize the article after this very busy week.  I thought it was pretty good before.  Banno thought it was dog vomit.  I hope I find his huge edit a major improvement.  If I see something I think needs changing, I'll change it, but I will take my time, and not work on more than one section per day.  Rick Norwood 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dog's breakfast, not vomit. A dog's breakfast is a mess of stuff left from dinner last night, uncooked bacon rinds, the fried egg yoke that someone didn't eat and half a tin of dog food. A mess. Banno
As I read the new introduction, the word that came into my mind was "breathless".  "Fraught!" indeed.  I've cut it to the bone, but at least now it gives the reader some idea of what philosophy is.  I worked with the second paragraph for a long time, cutting and cutting stuff that didn't really say anything, e.g. "for the interested reader", before I realized that the whole paragraph was just a repetition of the table of contents. Rick Norwood 01:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Lead section, especially "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". Care to have a go? Banno 05:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow. I walk away for a few days and things change completely!  I'm going to let you guys hack away at this thing (I liked the intro best when I combined Rick's and Banno's versions, but that may be just some bias on my part).  I'll stick to ISBN-ifying and fixing up the references... at least no one argues with that. :) --Michael (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things seem to have quieted down a bit. 

message: I've worked through this section.  I will not make any further changes in this article today.  I do wonder about the last sentence.  Shouldn't the stoics be saved for the histroy section?  What do you think, Miketwo? Rick Norwood 15:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning and use of the term. 

message: When a page with as long a history as this one gets more than 30 rewrites in one twenty-four hour period, my inclination is to revert the whole thing.  I am not going to.  Both Go For It and Infinity0 have some good ideas.  But I am going to say, once again, that planning ahead is better than rewriting, and rewriting, and rewriting.  Rick Norwood 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another major rewrite of the introduction