Talk:List of philosophers born in the 20th century

message: This list and the accompanying lists of philosophers by century were initially compiled (by me) to be all-inclusive provided any legitimate source (of general philosophy) could be provided citing the person as a philosopher.  By this criteria, Ayn Rand does meet the criteria for inclusion here, as the Routledge does give her an entry. KSchutte 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, don't you trust me? (I can see why you wouldn't, amongst all these Randians.)  KSchutte 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you should check some of the other discussion, we've had over the last few months and the quality of evidence... some of it is ... questionable as to whether it even exists.--Buridan 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: This issue has been discussed on versions of this list going back more than two years.  It was decided quite a while ago that even tangentially related figures to philosophy ought to be included on this list in order to be as comprehensive as possible.  That means we're including figures such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Amílcar Cabral, Bruno de Finetti, Mircea Eliade, Kurt Gödel, and so on, even though these people would not be readily apt to the label "philosopher".  At least some editors (i.e., the editor of the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) consider Rand to be just the sort of figure I've been talking about, so her place here is justified thereby.  If you have some reason to challenge the inclusion of all of these figures (rather than just Rand), then please make your case here. KSchutte 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge that she oughtn't be recognized as a philosopher and I assent to the fact that the Routledge doesn't describe her as such.  All I'm saying is that she meets the very minimal criteria for placement on a list that has such a wide range of figures that go far beyond the mainstream of philosophy and wouldn't, generally, be called "philosopher".  Her place on a list this broad is unlikely to harm the minds of the uneducated masses who might happen to click to this page.  There are a lot of questionable figures (theologians, speculative psychologists, mathematicians, political figures, scientists, etc.) on this list and its partners, but they are also all figures that someone with an interest in some area of philosophy or other might be inclined to know more about, which was the reason they were included in the works referenced, and the reason I compiled these lists initially.  I'm not convinced that there's a good reason to depart from my initial intention. KSchutte 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. A smart person who stumbles across this list will notice the references and conclude (appropriately) that the important philosophers are those who were included in at least two or three of the references. KSchutte 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: wikipedia is for everyone KSchutte, smart and not.   Our job as editors is to use verifiable sources to represent the material.  The problem is that all rand sources provided so far either are completely biased, written by rand supporters, or poor.  I would like to see this encyclopedia be at least as good as the print versions of the encyclopedia of philosophy.  They do not include rand, and likely never will.  Her ideology is significiant, her philosophy is not. --Buridan 13:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buridan, your first job as editor is to restrain you personal POV and not engage in origonal research.  You take it upon yourself to deny any and all sources provided for Rand.  They "are completely biased" according to you.  Or, they are "written by rand supporters" - Does that mean if any source says Rand is a philosopher, they are "supporters" and therefore disqualified?  Or, they are "poor" - you have compared Rand to Snoopy, said her philosophy is insignificant, while other editors, who don't like Rand or her work have separated their feelings from their job as editors.  When you trash the provided sources and delete sourced material you violating WP Policy.  You told KSchutte that Wikipedia was for everyone - I wish you'd quit editing it as if belonged only to you.  Steve 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buridan, I'm not advocating all the rest of the Rand-hype that goes on around here.  If you'd like, I could provide you with several documented occassions where I've actively resisted it (and similar insanities) on wikipedia.  But, still, the challenge you raise can't adequately be handled by the editors here in any non-question-begging manner.  As it stands, these lists are sourced, and her inclusion on this list is demanded by the sources.  If you want to object to the standards for inclusion, that is an issue that goes far beyond Rand, and I think you'll find that it will be exceedingly hard to specify a more stringent criteria that doesn't succumb to edit wars and ideological fights.  (I don't know if you were around to see the hilarity that was List of major philosophers.)  You know as well as I do that there is no universally recognized standard "authority" in philosophy.  This is one respect in which, due to the nature of the thing, wikipedia can never include everything that a print encyclopedia would have; it cannot accomodate distinctions of relative importance, for these will always have an arbitrary fine line that will be disputed.  This list was never intended to only pick out significant philosophers; it would be futile to attempt such a thing on here.  The list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, to include anyone who has had any influence at all on philosophy however minor.  I'm all for adding more sources to this list (provided they're as authoritative and as general philosophy works as those included), but such will only increase the number of individuals on this list, not decrease them.  KSchutte 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comprehensive is fine, when it is of philosophers.   I was here for major philosophers and the same two or three editors seem to be the only people who want to add Rand, which is fine, if they have a reliable source that distinguishes philosophers from non philosophers, is not biased, and is verifiable as a source that actually calls the person a philosopher. all i want is a reliable unbiased verifiable philosophical source, and as of yet, there are none.   that's a problem.  there is a tendency to promote rand on wikipedia.   however, if we cannot find any neutral sources in philosophy... then can we really call her a philosopher?   be honest here, her greatest claim to being a philosopher is her own claim to be one.  the secondary literatture, books in philosophy, are all by people who have participated in one or more of the rand/objectivism promotion groups.  I just don't see that there is any legitimate claim.   --Buridan 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read what I said?  I agreed that she's no philosopher, but asserted that the scope of this list isn't (nor could it be) so narrow.  You still have said nothing to justify such a narrowing. KSchutte 15:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  list of philosophers born in the twentieth century.   and you say she is no philosopher?--Buridan 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  She wrote extensively on philosophy, and even developed a school of philosophy, called Objectivism.  Please stop removing her from the various philosophy lists.   The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Find me a work of philosophy that explains how relevant his work is (that's not in the genre of The Simpsons and Philosophy-type books) and Frank Herbert can go on the list.  Good luck finding it. KSchutte 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, but all we need is one verifiable source that says he has a philosophy, right? i mean that's the standard fro inclusion?  any philosopher? --Buridan 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most of your citations were dismissed earlier as 'bad faith' by someone other than me, or was that steve's citations, it was months ago.  I think there are something like 40 citations or so, of which 35 are citations from biased sources....... and the unbiased ones are citaitons of biased sources, or problematic in other ways.  now if there is new evidence that has not been dealt with yet, sure.  but Tara Smith is very clearly getting monetary remuneration from various Rand-based investments, and has tied her career to asserting Rand is a philosopher, that's bias.  --Buridan 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh, I'm gone from WP for months, I peek my head back in, and what's going on in philosophy? More squabbling about Rand.  Anybody want to fight about whether Allan Bloom counts as a philosopher or just a political theorist?  What about Arthur Koestler, everytime I bring him up around academic philosophers half agree he should count and half think he shouldn't.  But no its always Rand, again and again. Don't recall any citations for Rand that aren't bad faith?  How about the one's Sam gave you in September, or the one's I did back in September.  See Talk: list of political philosophers.  I seem to recall that such bad faith and biased sources as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a selection of Wadsworth Introduction to Philosophy textbooks were among the examples.  Oh and Robert Nozick.  And my ex-colleugues at the philosophy department at Auburn University, oh and then there was the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which I beleive you dismissed by saying "I doubt that it counts as much as other distinguished publications, Routledge is not known for its fine philosophy publications."  Ah yes bias and bad faith.  Why not just admit that this is a topic of controversy but that there are reliable, verifiable sources in publication on both sides of the is Rand a philosopher debate (even when they don't have the kind of stake that Tara Smith does). Bmorton3 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rand 

message: Buridan, please refrain from going around the philosophy lists and removing Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and her books wherever you find them.  An analysis of your contributions show that you are highly biased, that you believe very strongly that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, and because of this you have been trying to restrict access to her articles on Wikipedia.  Your changes have been opposed by others on many of the pages you have been attempting this, yet you contintue to force the removal of links in the face of that opposition.  Please stop.  The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes where-ever they have been added without discussion or consensus in the field of philosophy, outside of some clear and measurable standard, I remove them.  would you like added to the list of people who do not want them removed, please comment on the philosophy project page where we'll decide this.  --Buridan 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: neutral, unbiased sources outside of the field of rand studies that actually make that claim so long as they are not singular in nature. one paper encyclopedia would work, especially if it was well respected.  even then she shouldn't be on lists that only have noted A-listers, are basic, or central to philosophy.  I don't think anyone would be able to find a citation that supports her work as a philosopher as basic or central to anything outside of rand studies. we have 3 encyclopedias that mention her right?  the routledge which apparently says she is a political theorist, not a philosopher, the online encyc. of philosophy which may have bias or incluion problems, and the online 'encarta', which would be fine, but it is the only major encyc. that mentions her in that light.  if it were the case that she was, all encycs would say it. --Buridan 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is that Buridan considers anyone who says something positive about Rand to be part of "Rand Studies." As you can clearly see here such academic heavy hitters as Peter Railton, A.P. Martinich, and David Sosa think enough of Objectivism to engage with Randian theory as part of contemporary philosophic dialogoue. Cambridge University Press thinks enough of Objectivism to publish a book on Rand's ethics. The Review of Metaphsics thinks enough of Objectivism to publish a paper titled "Ayn Rand on Concepts, Definitions, and Essences" by Allan Gotthelf. Tell me, are Cambridge University Press and The Review of Metaphysics part of "Rand studies?" Are Railton, Martinich, and Sosa Randian partisans? You can also see from the website of the Ayn Rand Society that Jaegwon Kim, Susan Haack, Richard Janko, John M. Cooper, and Christine Swanton have all participated in Ayn Rand Society meetings. All of these well known and respected philosophers have considered Rand enough of a philosopher to risk damaging their good names by engaging Objectivism as a philosophy of merit. Are they Randian partisans? Is Rand mainstream, or highly influential within academia? Hell no. But she is considered a serious, legitimate philosopher, else why would the very respected persons and institutions I just listed risk their reputations by treating her as such? Endlessmike 888 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buridan's systematic purging of Ayn Rand and Objectivism from philosophy lists 

message: The concerns I have raised at Talk:List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy#Accuracy and maintainability of this list are also relevant (in part) to this list. In summary, it appears to me to be too widely cast to meet WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then what seems to be the case to you isn't, in fact, the case. KSchutte 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BrownHairedGirl has a good point. It says that this list was restored through WP:PROD, but I can't seem to locate that archive. I'd like to have a look at the reasoning for restoring this list. Can anyone tell me where to find it? Sidatio 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I must have been looking at the wrong tab. What are the criteria for inclusion on this list - simply being a notable philosopher (or being a person who made a notable contribution to philosophy) born in the 20th century? That does seem awfully broad. Sidatio 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: added to the list, though I didn't have the Cambridge / Routledge volumes to hand to check.Dsp13 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and maintainability of this list 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle
...is not on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.136.36 (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: added to the list, though I didn't have the Cambridge / Routledge volumes to hand to check.Dsp13 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: john searle

message: I looked at the deleted content of the List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy (privilege of adminship), and there are a number of entries on it that would be appropriate additions to this list. I just added entries for A and U, and there are bunch more temporarily stored at User:RL0919/Philosophers that need to be reviewed and added to the list if applicable (that is, if they aren't already there and if the links really go to articles about philosophers, since there were a few from the old list that didn't). Some of the omissions are rather surprising, so this is a great opportunity to improve the comprehensiveness of this page. --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrections