Talk:Philosophy/Archive 8

message: Since the heading of the History of philosophy section references Eastern philosophy, I've moved that short section under History.  I've also arranged the subjects in Eastern philosophy in roughly chronological order, and standardized the use of BCE and CE throughout.
Because the character of the writing changes dramatically with the beginning of Modern philosophy, I've taken that out from under the History heading, where the writing is telegraphic, and made it a heading in its own right.  
I will pause for today, so that we can discuss whether or not these changes are an improvement. Rick Norwood 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The order of the sections 

message: --imported from "CONSENSUS"--
#Establish some general goals for this article
##Discuss what we need to say about philosophy for this to be a successful article
##Establish a "What this article isn't" guideline for future reference
#Discuss what topics must be raised to accomplish these goals
#Delegate goals to sections (create sections based on goals)
:The most important goal is to stick to what can be referenced and avoid original research.  Most "surveys" of philosophy take a dozen or so major philosophers and briefly explain their contribution.  Can anyone think of a better approach?
:What the article isn't is a textbook.  The sections should be brief and not unnecessarily technical, with a link to a main article on each subtopic.
:The first thing to do, then, is to list who we think the article must cover.  Other names can be added later, of course.  Off the top of my head: Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Lao Tze, Buddha, the author of the 'Gita', Omar Kahyyam, Augustine, Thomas Aquinus, Machivelli, Averoes, Avicina, Descartes, Erasmus, Spinoza, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon,  Calvin, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Russeau, William of Occam, Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Hegel, Pascal, Einstein, Gödel, Popper.  That list is both too short (I've left out major philosophers) and too long (we can't cover that many in more than just a list).  But it is a starting point.  The only names that seem to me to be essential are Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Spinoza, and Francis Bacon.  But I would object to removing all of the a) orientals, b) Christians, or c) scientists. Rick Norwood 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Another excellent edit by Ig0774.  Rick Norwood 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaggorama's five points 

message: The picture of Muhammad Iqbal seems out of place.  He is not mentioned in the text, and the text covers philosophers of a much earlier period.  Is there any objection to its removal? Rick Norwood 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad Iqbal 

message: The section begins:
"The Modern era of philosophy is commonly said to begin with Descartes, though evidence of the cultural change can be found in the Renaissance philosophy of thinkers like Niccolò Machiavelli and Francis Bacon."  
This is an example of why the article needs a lot of work.  Not only do we have the solecism "like" instead of "such as", but Francis Bacon was an older contemporary of Descartes while Machiavelli was dead before either of them was born.  I will attempt a rewrite of that one section, and then stop for comment and correction. Rick Norwood 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a class in the history of political philosophy where Rousseau was one of the main thinkers. Have you ever read his work? Lucidish 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where the force of your conceits stem from, here. Are you suggesting anything at all about the vocations of Rousseau or Pascal? I really can't tell; you'll have to be explicit about those reasonings that support the content of your claims. Lucidish 04:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not claiming that these men were not philosophers.  Let's not forget that I was the one who added their names to the article.  All I am saying is that Newton is clearly a better paradigm of a philosopher than Rousseau or Pascal. KSchutte 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the force behind your dismissals of another editor on the basis of philosophical competence? Lucidish 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying. But I wasn't responding to you there, I was addressing KS. Lucidish 15:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mel, don't bring your personal vendetta from Talk:Definist_fallacy over here.  You were clearly wrong not to have an explanation in there, and you were clearly in violation of the wikipedia Assume good faith policy in reverting my edit rather than putting the example I included in "prettier language".  That I pointed these things out should count in my favor rather than against me. KSchutte 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, let's be clear on what I said.  I said that Newton was a better paradigmatic example of a philosopher than Rousseau or Pascal.  This does not entail that I believe he is a paradigmatic example of a good philosopher.  Furthermore, it doesn't entail that I believe he was a better philosopher than those two.  Rather, I believe that Rousseau is a paradigmatic example of a good political theorist, and Pascal is a paradigmatic example of a good religious philosopher, but of these three, Newton is clearly the best paradigmatic example of a philosopher. KSchutte 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KS, you're essentially arguing about a prototypical philosopher. This can be pretty subjective unless you give your criteria for what you think qualifies a person as exceptionally and obviously a philosopher. I've given my own thoughts on what I think appropriate criteria to be above. But inevitably the discussion of a prototype will be open to dispute, because people will give their own criteria for it, weigh each criterion differently from the next one, and argue about the application of cases to the criteria. Lucidish 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL!! Interesting exchange. This talk page is certainly entertaining, at any rate.--Lacatosias 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does Kschutte's view not accord with any source that I've ever seen, he seems to be depending on a very narrow view of Rousseau's (and Pascal's) philosophical interests, while ignoring the narrowness of Newton's philosophical interests.  As his argument is too confused for me to be sure what he's trying to say, though, that's as far as I can go. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're such a sweet guy, Mel.  I could just hug you. KSchutte 22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalism and empiricism 

message: I put up an AfD for Voidism. It was created today, and only has 852 google hits, so I assume it's non-notable. Please vote. -- infinity0 16:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  The vandal immediately wikilinked it on two of our pages, which I have since removed.  Anyone who spots any others, please take care of them. KSchutte 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD [[Voidism]] 

message: Would anybody mind if I copied the Further Reading section of this article over to a subpage of List of publications in philosophy and let them figure out what to do with it?  I don't think we really need that information here. KSchutte 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a good idea, but maybe we should keep some of the introductory texts listed. Ig0774 21:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: I just found this petit chef d'oeuvre in the dbuckner/logic directory:
:"Beginning with Fibonacci (c. 1200), European mathematicians began once again to use logical arguments to prove new theorems. This use of logic produced a body of work much more internally consistent than that of the scholastics. Over the centuries, this mathematical logic became increasingly rigorous, departing from the rational argument of the philosophers. The combination of the deductive method of mathematics and the inductive method of observation and experiment proved spectacularly successful, leading eventually to the industrial revolution, which brought about major changes in the way people lived."  (Rick Norwood)
Dbuckner 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always nice to be appreciated. Rick Norwood 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A gem 

message: It seems to me that Blackburn's point about the relationship between philosophy and science deserves a mention along with Penguin. Lucidish 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, as long as he has a source.  If it is his original research -- not so fine. Rick Norwood 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be clear, I was referring to Simon Blackburn, the editor of the The Oxford Dictionary (of philosophy). I'm concerned that the section is giving a narrow view of what philosophy is about wrt science unless we include a quote from him. Lucidish 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think it will add something, go ahead and cite him, just as long as its clearly attributed to Blackburn — he can certainly be regarded as an authoritative source on philosophy. Ig0774 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition section 

message: I just reverted an edit by anon, and was typing the reason when I realized I had three reasons rather than two.  So, I held down leftarrow to go back and change "two" to "three".  But when the cursor reached the beginning of the line, it automatically saved the edit.  Does that always happen?
BYW, the third reason for the revert is that there were not many academies in ancient Greece but only one, the Academy, after which all modern academies are named.
Rick Norwood 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something happened 

message: ::"This method was developed further in the work of Alexius Meinong, Martin Heidegger, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
::"Heidegger expanded the study of phenomenology, but also drew on the works of Dilthey to elaborate a philosophical hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a method of interpreting historical texts by considering what thoughts the authors must have been having given the kinds of influences they were likely to encounter at that time and in that environment. Heidegger stressed two new elements of philosophical hermeneutics, that the reader brings out the meaning of the text in the present, and that the tools of hermeneutics can be used to interpret more than just texts (e.g. "social text"). Contributions to philosophical hermeneutics later came from Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur."
Of the names above, how many are important enough to include in this brief survey?  Heidegger, of course, but which of the others should be kept.  Please express an opinion if you want a name retained.  Rick Norwood 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaggorama, do you see how this is exactly the thing I suggested we try to avoid (over on your page)?  We should make this page immune to "my favorite philosopher" edits, rather than encourage them. KSchutte 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of the names mentioned above, Meinong and Dilthey can be removed.  It would in fact improve the bit to remove them. Ig0774 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more names for your consideration 

message: I listed Induction (philosophy) to be moved to Inductive reasoning, for consistent titles (cf deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning). Please discuss on the talk page of that article. Thanks.  -- infinity0 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Induction (philosophy)]] 

message: I'm much too long....  
:moved talk up to Feb 28 to /Archive 7.  Poor Yorick 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive me, please! 

message: It seems to me that the reference to Euclid speaks to a weakness in Kant's method.  And that the fact that "dialectic" goes back to Plato stresses the continuity of Western philosophy.  Rick Norwood 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, non-Euclidean geometry is relevant to Kant, but it's not nearly relevant enough to be in this article, which is supposed to be our very most basic article on philosophy.  This objection to Kant disturbs only a small portion of his philosophy, and there are some standard answers that are given to it. KSchutte 15:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euclid and Plato

message: * JA: Ism't that a bit like the difference between a Deist and a Deity!?  Jon Awbrey 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same reason why mixed-market state socialism in China is called Communist: for propaganda reasons. That's the difference between proper names and adjectives. Lucidish 23:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Lucidish 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Objectivist" vs. "Objective"

message: Lacatosias and I have made the Portal semi-automatic. It now rotates the selected philosopher and selected articles once a week!
*Portal:Philosophy/Featured article
*Portal:Philosophy/Featured philosopher
The latter only has 4 entries in it atm though, so someone needs to add a few extra philosophers onto the queue. Just copy and paste the code from one of the other entries and make the necessary adjustments. :) -- infinity0 21:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I can't wait to feature Ayn Rand. Alienus 22:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal