Talk:Philosophy/Archive 5

message: If you want to rewrite the introduction, do it on a separate draft page, as we are doing for the logic article.  Dbuckner 21:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put edits in a separate page 

message: I apologise for the rudeness.  I was just trying to make a point.  
I appreciate a number of people worked on this in good faith, but they seem to have little philosophical training, and they do not write well (see my comments above).  If you want my credentials, by the way, look in back copies of Analysis.  I left teaching a long time ago but I retain an interest. 
The problem we have here is the 'Mystic Meg' problem.  Unlike brain surgery or mathematical logic, many people think they can practice philosophy with little or no training.  
But Philosophy is not astrology, or mysticism, or the Tarot, or the occult, or even the Tao.  The word 'Philosophy' refers to a specific discipline, taught in universities across the world, with a specific history (from the Greeks, via the medieval philosophers &c) and a specific subject-matter (logic, metaphyics, epistemology and ethics).
On making positive contributions, well I have written nearly all the articles on philosophical logic, including Unity of the proposition, Existence, Ontological commitment, Concept and object, Term logic and many others.  Most have survived with very little alteration.  I have always avoided the Philosophy page
As a positive way forward: persuade more professional philosophers to join.  As I pointed out on the project page, Irving Anellis is on the project list.  He is a distinguished historian of logic, and has made some excellent contributions to the Bertrand Russell page.
I tried to persuade Melitis to join this, who is a professional philosopher.  He did not want to get involved because he felt WP was not a good medium, and in particular because of the 'Mystic Meg' problem.
At the very least, as I pointed out earlier, put a draft of the new introduction on a special page that we can discuss.  About 90% of the edits were down to corrections of clumsy  mistakes that could have been cleared by the writer doing all the corrections at home.  Write something.  Put it away.  Read it again the next morning.  Do some elementary parsing.
Another useful technique is to go through dictionaries and encylopedias and pick out the definitions, and list them out.  Then you get a clear idea of what is the same about all those definitions, and what is different.  Sometimes you get an insight.  One definition I found recently was that philosophy is what can be discovered by the light of unaided reason (as opposed to experimental or "scientific" methods, or supernatural revelation).  81.131.102.181 10:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User Mel Etitus maintained a vigilance over this article until a couple of months ago.  He made valuable contributions and edits, and while he was set in his ways and quite resistent to discussion it was basically that version which was the product of discussions between some professional philosphers and has been found unsatisfactory to the current reviewers.  I am a big believer in knowing when to leave well enough alone.  I'm not sure what the "Mystic Meg" problem is, but I think it is probably the same thing that keeps me away from this article.Amerindianarts 11:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the positive side 

message: First, Dbuckner, I apologize for misspelling your name.
Second, I hope I am not making an unwarrented assumption that the anonymous post is yours that says, 
"But Philosophy is not astrology, or mysticism, or the Tarot, or the occult, or even the Tao. The word 'Philosophy' refers to a specific discipline, taught in universities across the world, with a specific history (from the Greeks, via the medieval philosophers &c) and a specific subject-matter (logic, metaphyics, epistemology and ethics)."
Whoever wrote that paragraph, this is an attitude that might have been acceptable fifty years ago, but is not acceptable today.  Essentially, this is a claim that all "real" philosophy comes from the Greeks, and that all non-Western philosophers, including Lao Tze, are not "real" philosophers.  That view is not going to make it in Wikipedia.  Let's move on.
You lump the Tao and mysticism in with astrology and superstition.  The Tao Te Ching is not the I Ching.  The former is profound philosophy, the latter superstition.
It is true that I am, by profession, a mathematician and logician, not a professional philosopher.  I have, however, read widely and published a little in the latter area.  But the main point is not a matter of professional credentials but of common sense.  The study of philosophy today includes not just the Greeks and other Europeans, but also Buddha, Kung Fu Tze, Lao Tze, and other Eastern philosophers.  Rick Norwood 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rick. Dbuckner's position is a fairly Anglocentric and outmoded way of thinking which rests more upon tradition and less upon content analysis and theory. Lucidish 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What philosophy is. 

message: : (Norwood) This is a claim that all "real" philosophy comes from the Greeks, and that all non-Western philosophers, including Lao Tze, are not "real" philosophers.
Of course I'm not saying that.  I'm saying there is a well-defined tradition that comes to us from the Greeks, via the medieval philosophers (many of whom were not 'Western').  It changed a lot on the way.  To include other disciplines just confuses the issue.  Put these other subjects on different pages.
:The study of philosophy today includes not just the Greeks and other Europeans, but also Buddha, Kung Fu Tze, Lao Tze, and other Eastern philosophers.
No it doesn't.  If I look at any current journal of philosophy, say AJP, JoP, CJP &c, I don't see the study or discussion of 'Eastern philosophy' there.
:User Mel Etitus maintained a vigilance over this article until a couple of months ago. He made valuable contributions and edits, and while he was set in his ways and quite resistent to discussion it was basically that version which was the product of discussions between some professional philosphers and has been found unsatisfactory to the current reviewers. (Amerindianarts).
I looked at 'his' version and it was of much better quality.  My main objection to the version I deleted (and which has now appeared again) is that it is a crime against literacy. 
Anyway, I won't revert anything else.  I will simply not get involved.
Dbuckner 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog's Dinner 

message: On my talk page --
::It's true that I've added a few articles, and edited others, but I tend to steer clear of philosophy in Wikipedia (not always successfully). That's partly because it's one of those subjects upon which everyone seems to think that she's an expert (after all, it's just opinions, isn't it?), with dogmatism rising in proportion to lack of understanding, but partly because it's my own subject area, and I find that I have less patience with the dogmatically mistaken. It isn't helped by the fact that philosophy is inherently ill-suited to encyclopædias (and quiz shows), because it's primarily a process, not a product. It's also not helped by the different uses of the word to mean everything from academic/professional philosophy to the cosmological beliefs of Amazonian tribes (nor by the division between Anglo-American and Continental philosophy). I can't quite keep away (and I'll be interested in Existence when I get a chance to look at it), but you'll be more likely to find me adding articles on jazz musicians and albums...
Indeed Dbuckner 17:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel's words of wisdom 

message: :accusations of vandalism are not helpful. Banno 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindless reverts will accomplish nothing except driving away anybody who might actually contribute something of substance.  Rick Norwood 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert vandalised page 

message: I have completely rewritten the article here: User:Dbuckner/philosophy
:Socrates and Augustine are "academic philosophy"? And Adi Shankara and Nagarjuna are not? No. This article is about more than Western philosophy. — goethean ॐ 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am trying to deal with a single tradition, i.e. a causal chain where one influential writer or thinker influences another influential writer or thinker.  Augustine is a part of the intellectual tradition I have written about.  Adi Shankara is not.  Or prove some influence! On second thoughts, perhaps there is a place at the end of the tradition for those thinkers, some of them from the distant past, who are now influencing the current tradition.  After all, Eastern thought influenced Schopenhauer.  Work needs to be done. Dbuckner 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, your page seems appropriate to the article on Western philosophy, not philosophy. — goethean ॐ 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I am trying to deal with a single tradition, i.e. a causal chain where one influential writer or thinker influences another influential writer or thinker." You seem to have mistaken philosophy for history, then. Lucidish 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Some of this may belong somewhere, but I think it best to remove it to here for reworking.
The act of defining Philosophy is fraught with difficulty. This is partially because to do so is itself to engage in philosophy, and partially because the word is used to mean different things.
Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many cultures throughout history.  They investigate fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).
This article looks at some of the various meanings of the term "Philosophy", and provides an overview of the branches of philosophy.  It discusses the history of philosophical discourse from a range of cultures, and concludes with a selection of resources for further study. 
-Ste|vertigo 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed problematic, slackish lead 

message: As a bystander, just now seeing the interchanges above, I am reminded of my daughter's learning experiences at her Montessori school, where she spent from age 3 to age 12. This is how she learned how to play on a merry-go-round, in the presence of big and little kids.
The little ones naturally push it more slowly than the larger, older, more experienced ones. In order for a little one to get on the merry-go-round, they might simply grab a bar and drag their feet in the sand, while holding on. This slows down the rotation, which allows the little one to climb on. It was in fact dangerous for a 3-year old to hang on to a merry-go-round when a 12-year-old was pushing it.
But the big ones simply wanted to spin it around faster.
As a mere consumer of this article, I am naturally interested in a pleasant reading experience. It is painful to see squabbles on what has historically been a majestic article. Might there be a way to return to something like that state? --Ancheta Wis 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A merry-go-round