Talk:Philosophy/Archive 15

message: Thousands of words have been expended on the page repeating endlessly one of the following:
1) All philosophy is rational.
2) Not all philosophy is rational.
More thousands of words have been expended repeating endlessly one of the following:
1) All philosophy is Western.
2) Not all philosophy is Western.
Now that the page is unlocked, how about the following compromise.  Those in favor of the proposition that all philosophy is Western rationalism choose one -- whichever is most important to you.  In other words, choose that all philosophy is rational, but admit rational non-Westerners such as Confucius.  Or choose that all philosophy is Western, and admit non-rational Western philosophers such as Kant.  Your choice.  Rick Norwood 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant is "non-rational"? I'm confused as to what meaning you are giving to the word "rational" here. I think those who want to include something like "rational" in the introduction mean that philosophy involves a process of giving reasons and arguments for ones positions. Kant is clearly rational in this sense. VoluntarySlave 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant's main point is a sort of pre-Godel assertion that there are philosophical questions that cannot be answered by rational debate, but must be answered by some higher method.  He asserts, for example, that the proposition "God exists" is a true proposition in philosophy, even though it cannot be arrived at by reasoned argument. Rick Norwood 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too wondered what you meant.  I don't think you have Kant quite right (and the case is quite different from Godel).  I can't expound on the antinomies here, but it's worth taking another look.  Kant, in fact, claims to refute arguments for God's existence.  God is retained in his system, not as an entity whose existence can be known, but as a regulative principle.  Kant does not advocate establishing God's existence by irrational or non-rational means (a leap of faith, for example).  KD Tries Again 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For it is, it is, a glorious thing, to be a philosopher king 

message: Please note that I've provided ample space where much can be written regarding Rationality as it pertains to philosophy. However, notice that I've also provided sources in which Great philosophers struggled to provide an account if it. We therefore cannot be presumptuous in announcing to the world that Rationality is its distinguishing characteristic when this is merely our own opinion.
:Best regards, and assuming good faith. --Ludvikus 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let me correct without too much commentary on the standard of the section: 
1.  "According to W. Windelband[5], who published his second German edition in 1893 in the German language, when the word became a techical term, it meant exactly what science means in German."  "Philosophy" didn;t become a technical term in 1893.  Hegel, for one, used it many years earlier (Cite: http://www.hegel.de/werke_frei/startfree.html).  A good dictionary might give the earliest use.  Secondly, this is tricky to follow in English.  Did Windelband say that "philosophie" meant the same as "Wissenschaft"?  I don't have the orig. German to hand, as it happens.
2.  Wittgenstein:  Not a definition, more a rhetorical question.
3.  Flew's sex joke is inappropriate in this context, and it's a waste of space to give a definition the author himself rejects (if that's what "side-steps") means.
4.  "A varient view holds that it is its method of enquiry (inquiry) is subject to the condition of rationality."  I corrected the spelling; "enquiry" and "inquiry" - is there a Wikipedia policy on whether American or British English is preferred?: anyway, the sentence doesn't make sense as written; and I am not clear how it varies from "an essential characteristic is its rationality".  Furthermore, the latter is not a "contemporary" view.  It is how the subject has been viewed historically.  KD Tries Again 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of Philosohy, Chronologically 

message: The dispute was not about whether philosophy is this or that.  It was about whether we follows WP:OR or not.  I see it was hopeless.  And I see the floodgates have opened.  I don't really have the time or energy to engage this particular editor, so I am going to sit back and watch for a bit.  Dbuckner 08:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepping down for a bit 

message: Please Ludvikus do not try and tell me what conduct means,
    I have been speaking the language for some time as have most of my ancestors.
    Conduct is a strange word on this page it is not a word that appears much in philosophy,
    usually we talk of ethics or morals etc. Lucaas
Regarding conduct, that's an uninformed opinion regarding philosophical usage.
This was copied fmro your user page, you should not post it here without my permission.--Lucas 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucaas on [[Conduct]]

message: Conduct. In ethics, any voluntary behavior, or intentional disposition to act,
     for which a person may be held responsible relative to standards of right and wrong.
     --Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 44
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conduct Citation

message: The following is by Anthony Quinton as said in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
          A more detailed, but still uncontroversial comprehensive, definition
   is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind
   about the [1] general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence),
   [2] the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and
   [3] and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of these three elements...
   [numbering and emphasis added; page 666.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Trilogy of Philosophy 

message: I've supplied that phrase by giving the 2nd part of Anthony Quinton's definition.
:Best regards, particularly to those who are so passionately moved by these 3 words.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy as "Rationally Critical Thinking" 

message: Lucas & Lucidish are taking over again, against consensus. --Ludvikus 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary Sampling, and Profound Generalizations 

message: *Now we have a single person who has completely ignored all our compromises.
*Just as everyone came to a consensus, he given us his philosophical view that we must swallow.
*This is Lucidish .
*Whatever anyone thinks, only what he thinks counts.
*It is extreme bad faith on his part!
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ben S. Nelson]] 

message: I have no problem with the current intro, and won't mess with the intro unless it gets awful again.
Moving to the next topic, structure.  I think everyone agrees that the current structure is a hodge podge.  I propose changing from
#1 Branches of philosophy 
#2 History of philosophy 
#3 Western philosophy 
#4 Eastern philosophy 
#5 African philosophy 
#6 Philosophical topics 
#7 Metaphysics and epistemology 
#8 Ethics and political philosophy 
#9 Applied philosophy 
#10 Confines of Philosophy 
#11 Philosophers on Philosophy 
#12 References 
#13 Further reading 
#14 See also 
#15 External links 
to
#1 Western Philosophy
#2 Non-Western Philosophy
#3 Philosophical Questions
#4 Applied philosophy
#5 Philosophers on Philosophy 
#6 References 
#7 Further reading 
#8 See also 
#9 External links 
Feel free to modify this list.  If there is anything like a consensus (if even two people agree) I'll follow the consensus.  Rick Norwood 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple reservations. But I think we should first iron-out the East/West issue. I think if we can solve this - then the rest will fall in place. I think that itself may be controversial. But I think it's better for me to wait a bit. Thank you, Rick Norwood. Ludvikus 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 

message: Can we now discuss this issue, please. Are we going to write about philosophy next as if the distinction does not exist? Let's first come to an understanding as to nature of the distinction - but always relying on specific sources. I've pointed out the following:
   1. Chinese philosophy is cited in reference books
   2. Hindu philosophy is cited in reference books 
   3. African philosophy is cited in reference books 
   4. Hungarian philosophy is cited in reference books
   5. Eskimoe philosophy I don't know anything about it
   6. Eastern philosophy is a category in Barnes and Noble
Can we write about philosophy in this article as if these distinctions did not exist?
And if not, do we start with the East or West?
Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference is on the page { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? --Ludvikus 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cua { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish
As discussed earlier, Western Philosophy is a tradition with continuity.  On the other hand, there does not seem to be any continuous tradition of Eastern Philosophical, but rather various non-Western philosophers who worked largely in isolation, or only with reference to other Philosophers who spoke the same language.  The pervasive influence of Buddhism is best covered under that article.  A subhead here on non-Western philosophy can provide links to Chinese Philosophy, etc.  Rick Norwood 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[East]] vs. [[West]] Issue

message: I am now going to start deleting all comments from this talk page that are irrelevant, contain personal attacks, which are general discussion about the article's subject and not specifically devoted to improvements to this article.  This and this (the last being a particularly offensive and obscene comment about another user) are perfect examples of what I mean.  There have been a lot of complaints about a small number of users (mostly one person, to be frank) hijacking this discussion page, and making reasonable discussion impossible.  This is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy and the objectives of this page as stated above.  Thanks.  Dbuckner 10:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Banno I am in continuous communication with him.  Repeat, there is a crisis going on here, I am trying to manage the situation.  If you want to make any significant changes in draft, make them underneath the article, thus Philosophy/Mydraft or similar.  Thanks again.  Dbuckner 13:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. There are some other editors involved - I would like their comments when they are available.  Thank you again for being helpful.  Dbuckner 13:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is perfectly consistent with WP policy.  I will continue deleting irrelevant, objectionable and personal comments.  Thanks Dbuckner 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Policy states that deletion of talk material should only be re: irrelevant content, libel, and broadcasting personal (real life) info. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of irrelevant comments  

message: I especially like KD's comment that "It's very important to say something about the way philosophy answers those questions, because novels, poems, churches, politicians and exotic cults also address them.  What distinguishes philosophy is that these inquiries primarily proceed by argument rather than rhetoric alone, using logical inference, examples, thought experiments and other reasoning tools to establish conclusions."
It's exactly the same as Quinton's point that philosophical method replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in our conception of reality, knowledge, ethics &c, which beliefs which are articulated in systematic and well-argued way.  But it can't be said often enough.  And it is close enough to King's point that the dualist belief of a Christian (e.g.) isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith: the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief (i.e. in an argued, critical, organised and more or less systematic way).
I'd like to get all these points into the introduction or in sections underneath.  But we are in a very special situation at the moment.  Dbuckner 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KD's points 

message: I think all these (above) terms should be dropped from the opening.
*They do not really contribute anything to enlighten us.
*They themselves are subjects of philosophy.
*They impact on at least the Categories of Aristotle and Kant, and subordinate these.
*They are presumptuous, and pretentious, in relation to philosophy.
*They are inconsistent with the fact that defining philosophy is controversial.
*They reflect an attitude that all philosophers were not competent in failing to define philosophy because Wikipedia's editors are able to define philosophy.
*Etc.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most, fairly, general, critical, systematic, fundamental, elements, & nature 

message: Let me remind editors who have been reverting of the comments made by the guy who unlocked this page, Banno (if you want an exception, go ask him if you can revert before doing it) :
:::remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"
:::If the dispute cannot be settled, consider mediation.
:::If the discussion degenerates into a revert war, the page will be locked again. 
:::If you really think that the other guy is being a dick, talking about it on this talk page won't help. Instead, launch a RfC on the user.
Let me put it a little clearer
1. No reverts
2. Improve what is there
3. Avoid personal attacks
4. Being right can be wrong
Now if you wish to excuse yourself from 1-4, to be an exception, then go to the doctor and get a note, and dont just declare youself king of the infinite space of this little nutshell.
--Lucas 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  Good point.  I had in mind something like "I r in Hi Skul an I r bored." Rick Norwood 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you've made a reference to me, by using my name above, I can do the same, no? But I won't. I just ask that you acknowledge the fact that the person who has been subjected to the most personal attacks is that person above that you refer to, "Ludvikus". Now I'm quite certain you've heard of the Marxist distinction between Theory and Practice. So I ask you, since you support the theory that Philosophy is some sort of Rational, or Critical, Inquiry; but the Practice herein, as exhibited by the inquiries regarding Ludvikus and his theories, cannot be construed as Rational or Critical; wouldn't it be correct and propper for you to drop Rational, Critical, and its cognates from the description of Philosophy? Unless, of course, you are blind to the fact that the Practice of Philosophy has in fact been Irrationasl, and Uncritical, to the Philosophical views expounded herein by Ludvikus? Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground Rules