Talk:Hilary Putnam/Archive 1

message: Anyone understand Putnam on this?
My view: Seems to me like he gets himself tangled in overly complicated language. "We are brains in a vat" is rendered false by the fact that he believes that the only vats we can refer to are those in the world that we appear to be in (he disregards the possibility that we can refer to anything outside the apparent world). Since we clearly are not in vats in the apparent world – we appear to have a more substantial body – the statement is indeed necessarily false. But it does not mean that we are not in real vats, even if we cannot refer to them. More to the point, he is wrong to assume that we are unable to refer to things external to the apparent world. The fact that we are discussing the possibility of vats at all in the way we are destroys Putnam’s argument. Alternatively, Putnam could be arguing that our ability to contemplate matters outside of our apparent world is what proves that we are not in a vat. However, it is extremely unclear why brains in a vat would have such a constraint on their conceptual abilities compared to us.
--129.67.114.173 12:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s)--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain-in-a-Vat

message: The literature listings should be ones that are reputable, and likely to be found in a typical academic library.  These are ones that will likely be of use to those looking for further information on Putnam.  Obscure articles should not appear in the literature list.  (This is not to say that they must be in English, but sources in English clearly are necessary.)
There once was a brain in a vat
that Putnam said couldn't that that
it is a brain in a vat
The brain pondered this thought
and frew so overewrought
that it fell right out of its vat
:::There really ought to be a section on his Philosophy of Science. Specifically, his work on Quantum Mechanics, alternative Logics, etc. 66.108.4.183 07:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Why don't you do it?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature about Putnam 

message: Looks like Putnam likes the article! From here:
:When I showed the Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam his entry, he was surprised to find it as good as the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He was flabbergasted when he learned how Wikipedia worked. "Obviously, this was the work of experts," he said.
Take a bow, editors. Ziggurat 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one thing though. He doesn't have an entry in the SEP yet. ??? Well, anyway. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the article too. Congratulations to all the contributors. Ori.livneh 18:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why hasn't this been listed as a feature article? Banno 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of self-nominating this one later on. But after the initial reception I got with Fodor, I suspect it wil be attacked for being too technical, too many commas, no picture, thin on biography... What can I tell ya??? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright!!! now this is getting REALLLLYY interersting!! Let's try this experiment then.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article mentioned in New Yorker 

message: I thought this article was of a very high standard, and one of the best philosophy pages in WP.  If not the best.
It proves that good philosophy is possible in WP (I left the project in disgust some time ago, on the assumption that philosophy as such was impossible in WP).  I wonder if it's worth another try?  Dbuckner 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on "Leave comments" at the top.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francesco, I started a copy edit and took the clean-up tag off, because that's reserved for the very worst of our pages. If you don't like what I'm doing for whatever reason, or if I introduce errors, please tell me to stop, and feel free to revert. I won't be offended. :-) I've done the intro, and the first para of the second section, and I'll do some more as and when time permits. I find that the refs make copy editing for flow a very slow job, so I'll be doing a little bit at a time. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. The stupid in-line refs are a pain in the butt for everything. If you want to fix a ref, you have to click on the arrow at the bottom which takes you to the appropiate ref in the body of the text. Then, you have to go into that specific section
and find the damned thing, which is hopelessly entangled wih other refs and the text!! That took me about 4 hours yesterday.  As User:Jon Awbrey once put it: "when the bots take over, I'm leaving." The bots have taken over, it seems. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: Francesco, there's a missing ref at the top of Criticism (named ref CA).  I tried to find it, but had no luck.  You're just about done ! Sandy 04:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, Sandy. Thanks.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing ref

message: "…the pervasive atmosphere of anti-Semitism of the time…"? In mid-1960s Boston? This strikes me as a bit odd. Admittedly, Harvard, like several other elite universities, was at that time at the tail end of the period in which it had a quota severely limiting the number of Jewish students, but this is precisely the era in which that sort of thing was falling away. What exactly is this referring to? - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thanks for responding to my note. Admittedely, I wrote that sentence, so I will try to explain. It now strikes me as very odd, in fact. In one of the sources I was using for the bio, it says approximately "We felt like we were defying Hilter and the anti-semites". I was trying (but failing) to get the idea across that they were rebelling against a sense of anti-semitism derived from their past. I need to say "rebelling against the anti-semitism of their past experiecne" (past lives?  (bit this doesn't sound right to my ears??) How about "against the anti-semitism of their youth"!!....Ok, I'll fix it that way.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In the 1950s-1960s there was still tons of antiSemitism in cities like NY and Boston. The "street-type" of AS. I experienced plenty of it as a kid in NYC. 66.108.4.183 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, let's keep that discussion to another page like [[anti-semitism in Boston], please. This is mainly a philosophy article. I simply changed it to past anti-semitism to avoid controversy.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: Could someone elaborate on the comment about outrage at Halberstam? Halberstam (author of The Best and the Brightest) is generally thought of as a critic of the conduct of the war. According to our article on Halberstam, his NY Times reporting on Vietnam "caused U.S. president John F. Kennedy to request he be transferred to another bureau." That is to say, Halberstam was raising dissenting issues no later than November 1963, when the anti-war movement barely existed. So if we are going to go into this at all, the nature of his criticisms of Halberstam should be spelled out. - Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My source (listed and linked in the references) is very vague on this. I will give the exact quote here in a bit and then you can see what you can make of it (or elimiate, etc..). But it IS sourced.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here'es the (only) passage on the topic:
In the midst of this prodigious output of philosophical activity, Putnam was thrown into the controversy surrounding the Vietnam War. In 1963, while he was teaching at MIT, he organized one of the first faculty and student committees against the war. He was particularly outraged by David Halberstam's reporting, especially the claim that the U. S. was "defending" the peasants of South Vietnam from the Viet Cong by poisoning their rice crop. As the war continued... from footnote #12. Hickey,  Hilary Puntam, etc... Keep in mind that Putam was very radical at the time and may well have taken something that Halberstan wrote out of context, misimterpretd it, or was being misled, etc...--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I will search some more on this.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halberstam 

message: I'm scanning through the recent edits to make sure that content, arguments, and so on are not compromised. Also, to ensure that some "bad" edits,like those made by SlimVirgin yesterday, do not inadvertently creep in. Absolutely nothing personal Slim. Now I know how Tony1 feels in a certain sense.  In any case, there are two things that popped out. One is just a question: why footnotes and refercnes separately. The footnotes are the references  in the srrict sense  that word. Tony1 asked "AmEng or BrEng?" I'm using American English, but British forms may have crept in from elsewhere or even from myself mistakenly. I'll try to answer other in-line questions about facts and so forth.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also interested in the question about separate references:  I've never advocated for separately listing all the references.  I tend to look for a separate listing of only the most important references.  But, if I'm reading it correctly elsewhere, I think SV has a good point.  If you separately list References, when an inline citation goes dead because another (subsequent) editor juggles text around or makes deletions, you can locate the citation in the References section.  If that is her reasoning, I do see the point now.  Sandy 12:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But she has listed only the main ones,as you suggest. Not all of them. (?) --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scanning

message: The problem with the philosophy "department" is that there are no philosophers (well...only two or three plus three or four serious graduate students and studiosi). Let me put it this way: the vast majority of the people who contribute to philosophy articles are either a) cranks, b) kids who think philosophy is just about "expressing one's opinions" or making up cool big words, c) functionally illiterate, d) fundamantalist religious fanatics or other people with an intense need to impose their POV, e) knowledgable edit-warriors who are dead set on ensuring that Ayn Rand or Daniel Denett (or whomever) will not have his views subjected to criticims. Even when they ARE knowledgable and capable folks, they do not know how to work together. I still think this is partly due to the nature of philosopy, where there are never any finished answers or final facts. The talk pages on major philosophy articles, e.g., truth, empiricism, philosophy, are infinitely longer than the pages themselves. Standards are therefore naturally very low at this point. Bad work pushed out the good the way bad money pushes out good money. You say the Putnam FAC was unusual. I came in unprepared.
(I dount that is so unusual, but if you look at my philosophy of mind FAC (sucess) and my Jerry Fodor FAC (fail), along with the latghe numnber of articles I have written almost wholly from scratch, you will see that it is unusal in another way: it is probably the onlt article I have ever written that did NOT include criticism and opposing views.  More importantly, it is unusual that that VERY unusual that a philosphy article meet the criteria that are now required. There are currenlty six Phi artciles that have achived FA. One I did myself. The other five almost certainlty do not meet the currenct criteria. The Hilary Putnam article is extraorindaily unsual now. (I'm sorry this has to be said somwhere).
If it passes FAC, it will be one of the two or three FAs in all of philosphy that meet ALL of the current standards. That is part of why I took this thing so seriously. In addition, it is a biogarphy of a living philospher (there is very little material to go on) and deals mostly with his ideas . It is, in fact, one of a kind among all the FAs. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Putnam unusal because philosophy is unusual

message: In the discussion of functional isomorphism: "This is sometimes referred to as an 'a priori argument'." The referent of "This" is unclear, as is the relevance of the statement. What exactly is being characterized as a priori? - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'tis indeed ambiguous. Thanks for spotting that. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A priori 

message: *Get photograph.
*Find newly-published biography:
Ben-Menahem, Yenima. (2006) Hilary Putnam. Edited by Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Cambrige:Cambrige University Press. ISBN-13: 9780521012546.
Not yet available in Italy.
*Images or photos of Brain-in-vat, Twin Earth, etc...
--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about that. That "argument" is not really an argument, as far as I am able to make it. I'm sure many people have been confused by it. I'm truly shocked that no philosophers or logicians seem to have  even noticed it or, if so, attempted to clarify if so that to that it makes some sort of sense to ME, at the very least. I will find another, much more meaningful argument to replace that para. I aslo need to add something about Putnam's most recetn turn toward prgamatic Wittgenstianianism. But this latter will be somewhat diificult to put into layman's terms. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That has been corrected.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ways to improve artcile

message: I find the description of the Harvard discliplinary proceedings and Putnam's role confusing in this write-up, and the linked article is incomplete and not completely supportive of the language on this page.  From the Crimson article, it sounds like the administration was looking to pass some broad disciplinary guidelines without specificing who they were targeted at, and Putnam felt they were targeted at him, though it was not an explicit attck.  It is unclear what the guidelines would have prohibited, and the language on the page references "procedures" without describing what they are. Could someone who knows the full story take a quick look at this part of the article and seek to clarify it?  Thanks,  Sam 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on PLP/Harvard 

message: Why there's no picture of the man? CG 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the extensive discussion of this issue at the comments for FAC nonimation site. Bmorton3 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He mailed a marvelous portrait-photo to me just this morning. I have it all ready to upload.  Unfortunately, I didn't explain to him that he must explicilty release the rights on the terms of the cccls, cq.ply, GFDC, ofcl, and other such siglas. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: THIS is how this article was, and probably would have remained forever, before I touched it. Period. Fodor was even worse.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare and contrast??

message: Lacatosias, I've taken some liberties with the new image. Let me know if preferable; and others let me know what rules I may have broken.)
No, I think you've got it right actually. I had forgotten that fair-use images are suppose to be low-res (or low-quality, or something like that). Thanks for the adjustment.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure one can crop a book cover, change it to black and white, and still use the "book cover" usage tag. At any rate, my motivation for doing so was that the book cover you uploaded was actually smaller than the size of the image used by the Philosopher template, so the image was being "blown up" and didn't look that good. Outriggr 06:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what the others think about that. We can always go back to the image of the full book cover, with the title and so on, if necessary. Interestingly, I just realized that that photo (in black and white) is the same photo that Putnam sent me via email!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding (probably wrong) is that "fair use" generally does not allow changes to copyrighted works. However, if you scanned the book cover yourself (rather than grabbing a copyrighted file from the web) you might have more flexibility. Gimmetrow 12:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Infatti, as they say over here. If it's a book cover, it should be recognizable as a book cover. I'm reverting back to the previous version. I liked the color anyway.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Outrigger

message: I apologize for suggesting that people had not noicted the page-move vandalism. I looked in the history and tried to revert, but it seemed to have been there for hours. Then I realized you have to actually move the page back and that it had only been there for about 7 minutes. Good job.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry for accusing people

message: "In the field of epistemology, he is known for the "brain in a vat" thought experiment" er... didn't that obscure continental philosopher René Descartes come up with that idea, in the seventeenth century? ElectricRay 07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was the evil demon experiment. Rememeber from Philsophy 101?? Or did you even get that far?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - I couldn't stand all the smug know-it-all dickweeds in class so I went off and did Law instead. Boy was that the right career choice. ElectricRay 17:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain in a vat

message: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that Putnam was involved in proving that Hilbert's Tenth Theorem is unsolvable, rather than saying he solved it?  The introduction makes it sound as if he found a solution, whereas the article states that he helped demonstrate there was no solution. The Dark 12:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'll take a look at it and see if I can fix it. Th problem has been fightint the vandals all day. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilbert's Tenth

message: perhaps featured articles should be protected for a short time period during/after their featured status. If there are any glaring errors then that could be addressed by a duty-administrator who can unlock and edit. Anyone else interested enough to contribute can put something on the talk page and wait a day or so for the discussion to come up and the changes to be made. Davkal 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other pages for these comments (which i agree with). Try Wikipedia Talk:Featured Article Candidates or something like that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a suggestion for featured articles

message: There really ought to be a section on his Philosophy of Science. Specifically, his work on Quantum Mechanics, alternative Logics, etc. 66.108.4.183 07:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: I absolutely agree. Do you want to write it? What can you tell me about?? We need (I need!!) people who know this material and are willing to actually step up to the plate. Write it up, Man!! Can't do everything myself.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I will be bold and write a brief stub-like paragraph, which others can then expand. 66.108.4.183 05:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important comment pulled from archive

message: The article on Hilary Putnam has him listed as a "20th century philosopher".  While it is true that Putnam was born in 1926 and most of his work was published last century, his best books are coming out now.  Putnam's 2002 book, "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy" is an amazing book which relates ethics to economics, a la Amaryta Sen.  Putnam's 2004 book, "Ethics without Ontology" is an equally amazing book on ethics, mathematics and stands in the traditions of pragmatists like John Dewey and Continental philosophers such as Emmanuel Levinas.  In fact, Putnam wrote the opening essays in the 2002 "Cambridge Companion to Levinas", and the 2001, "Cornel West: A Critical Reader".  Remember, Moses died when he was 120.  If Moses wrote the Torah, he wrote it late in life.  Putnam's best work is coming out now -stuff on ethics, welfare economics, Marxism, race relations, etc...  Teetotaler
:I thint that is not problem to put one philosophers in two chronological categories. --89.216.117.25 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putnam a 20th Century Philosopher? 

message: "In the late 1980s and the 1990s, stimulated by results from mathematical logic and by some ideas of Quine, Putnam abandoned his long-standing defence of metaphysical realism—the view that the categories and structures of the external world are both causally and ontologically independent of the conceptualizations of the human mind. He adopted a rather different view, which he called "internal realism".[36][9]"
Are the dates in this paragraph correct? I had a look at some other resources and it looks like 'late 1970s and the 1980s' is more accurate.
:Hmmm.. you may be right. I'll check into it further when I get the chance. Unless you can find the sources yourself and just fix it. Thanks. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. My bad, as they say in the States these day (though I have no idea what the F it is supposed to mean).--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cut the pie anyway you like, meaning just ain't in the head." (Putnam, 'The Meaning of Meaning') Teetotaler
The first anti-realist publication was, i think, 'realism and reason', c.1977.  The first, or at least the first clear exposition of 'internal-realism' was in 'reason truth and history', (1981).  I think also that Dummett deserves a mention too in influencing putnam.  Also, it maybe ought to be mentioned that Putnam has significantly altered his position in his latest writings, and abandoned the 'anti-realist' aspects, and (albeit slightly inconsistently perhaps) the name, of his position (see e.g. 'the threefold cord' (1997).
This whole section could do with some working on: i will see what i can come up with...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.115.13 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Error 

message: I am in the process of switching the bulky Template:Logic nav bars to the tiny Portal:Logic links instead. I'm pretty sure wikipedia users interested in this page will find it convenient.Gregbard 08:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal link

message: Several publications incorrectly state that Ruth Anna was born in Munich.  However, she was born on the 20th of Sep 1927 at her grandparents home in Berlin. She personally confirmed this to me.  Her grandfather was Prof. Dr. Hans Kohn, after whom the "alveolar pores of Kohn" are named.
75.38.192.140 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace of Hilary Putnam's wife Ruth Anna 

message: H. Putnam seems to have always been interested in religion (he re-joined the faith and also wrote an essay on Wittgenstein's Lectures on Religion in the mid 1970s (?), and this has itensified. There seems to be a lot of stuff from him on jewishness and jewish religion. I am a boring atheist, I think, so do not know anything about the topic, but it must be interesting, if Putnam cares about it? --Radh (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that it's interesting.  I understand that your last sentence means that Putnam's interest in it has drawn your interest in it, but may I suggest that it is intrinsically interesting in and of itself?  I also find Christianity, which followed from it, intrinsically interesting. Jsdy (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Religion 

message: I propose that the article, which mentions both 'direct realism' and 'internal realism' should certainly include the term 'pragmatic realism'. He says, in "Is There Anything To Say About Reality And Truth? "I should have called it pragmatic realism". The article merely talks of a 'pragmatic-inspired direct realism', which I think underplays the pragmatism behind his 'conceptual relativism'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBBoy12345 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right -he is even listed as an analytic philosopher in the side bar when he is in fact a pragmatist.  However, he is not a conceptual relativist any longer, having broken away with it in "Ethics Without Ontology", embracing instead 'conceptual pluralism'.  There is an important difference there.  I'm guessing one of us should "be bold" as they say in wiki-speak and go ahead and change the article.  Teetotaler 21 March, 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree on realism. Disagree on the analytic label. Putnam is indeed a pragmatist but only within the context of the analytic tradition -- see for example his theory of truth. His methodology and positions are pretty cleanly analytic. Pragmatism should get a mention in the lede though. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pragmatic Realism?

message: At the risk of starting a turf war, I suggest adding under "School" the link to "Pragmatism" in addition to the existing "Analytic." Putnam, was an analytical philosopher through much of his career, but he also is widely known as a pragmatist. His pragmatism is mentioned in this article multiple times and he is mentioned several times in the pragmatism article. ProfGiles (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll sign off on that. The work he's done for the past 20-odd years can't be characterized as just "analytic." It's much more complex than that, as I know now after having just read Ethics without Ontology and The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. I should also mention Hilary Putnam: Pragmatism and Realism as an excellent source for discussion of Putnam's pragmatism. ProfGiles (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, Putnam is not just an analytic philosopher and I added "Pragmatism." However, I also think that the whole "school" section in the infobox is dispensable. Why should every philosopher belong to a school? Quite often, the "school" section is a strange oversimplinfication and not really useful. --David Ludwig (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  School (of philosophy)